Books and Blogs
Whew! Lately I’ve been putting every ounce of my thought energy into my book about Game Feel (and much of my physical energy – just got back from a bunch of interesting book-relevant interviews in LA, SJ.) This, obviously, leaves little time for the blog. But, hey, writing is writing, and if what I’ve written for the book thusfar is any indication I write better when I’m more relaxed. Blog-like style suits me much better, n’est-pas?
So as a bit of a brainstorming/creativity/productivity tool, I’m going to start brainstorming some of the things I’ve been mulling book-wise to the blog here. This should provide some nice clarification, perhaps a bit of book-usable writing, and a chance to get some feedback on ideas as they’re developing.
Spew du jour:
• Are casual games “without feel?”
• Casual games focus on having the lowest possible barrier to entry. They accomplish this by using the most widely spread interface conventions possible, mostly pointing at things and clicking on them. Browsing the Web, essentially.
• How does skill relate to casual games and game feel?
• Not about skillful translation of intent into motion
• About other things, more generalized things such as word puzzles, logic puzzles, or image puzzles
• As a casual designer you can’t assume the player has pre-existing knowledge or skills of manipulation past basic point and click skills
• But you can assume that everyone has an image processing center that will be pleasurable to utilize by doing things like sorting objects, recognizing patterns and so on. Same with words; everyone who’s online can probably read, and letters are simple, recognizable and fun to organize or rearrange. Often casual games will appeal to many of these faculties simultaneously.
• Skill grows over time, both in a single game and as a more abstract generality
• There is a general skill to manipulation of a digital avatar which is applicable to all games in which motion translation is employed
• Just as knowing how to use a mouse is applicable to all websites
• Game ‘genres’ have kind of evolved this way: if a game takes a particular kind of skill that is similar to another game, those two often get lumped together
• Assumed knowledge in the player is a game design tool: if your interface is close enough to lots of other FPS games, you can assume that players will ‘get it’ very quickly and this gives you some reassuring certainty in an otherwise highly uncertain enterprise
• This is why lots of games are so similar to one another
• This is also why it’s so damn hard to make a game that’s completely ‘original’ and employs few conventions from other games that the designer can assume the player will understand to some degree.
• But hey, we got along ok when there was no precedent, when every game you made would potentially constitute a ‘new genre.’
Casual games are very interesting to ponder in relationship to game feel because they contain no proactive motion. Here is a whole class of games that more or less ignores the core of game feel. That is, purely input-driven motion and the potential for frustration, challenge, and the soaring elation of mastery that comes with it. Often, there is no control layer, no “twitch” skill that must be mastered as part of the gameplay in a casual game. To play takes roughly the same amount of skillful manipulation as buying a pair of shoes from an online retailer. Point to what you want and left-click. The challenge in casual games tends to be more cerebral, as in word puzzles, logic puzzles, or image puzzles, with as low a barrier to entry as possible.
The thing is, a lifelong gamer can pick up and enjoy a casual game. The interface is no barrier, and the challenge can still be engaging or meditative.
Casual players do not consider themselves gamers, and might even be offended by the suggestion.
One mantra of casual game design is ‘only the mouse.’ Even right clicking is viewed as too complex for the average casual player.
Does this mean that casual players are inept? That they’re all morons? Perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer is no. We can’t swipe categorically at these folks because they’re not stupid. They simply lack the experience of years of skillful manipulation those of us who grew up with games take for granted. But they’re still intelligent people, people who want to solve crossword puzzles or play Sudoku. This speaks to the nature of skill and challenge in video games: there are limitless kinds of challenges, some of which are about mastering a motion translation, some which aren’t. By and large, casual games are about sorting things by colors and shapes, recognizing patterns in letters or numbers, logical deduction, or a combination of the three.
The processing power of the computer is used mostly for keeping score and for reactive effects such as showers of particles and blasts of colors that reward the slightest action. Perhaps this is why most game designers regard the casual player with disdain, because they see this constant stream of reward as mollycoddling and can’t comprehend the notion that a person would not have devoted countless hours of their life to mastering Ninja Gaiden.
Casual games are also about Flow. Flow in the Csikszentmihayli sense, as in “The Flow State.”
—————————————–
Not exactly my best prose, I realize, but I’m brainstormin’ here. Thoughts are welcomed/appreciated.
6 Comments
I really think your last paragraph is interesting. I hope that in your book you will go more in depth about the differences in gamers.
“Perhaps this is why most game designers regard the casual player with disdain”
I used to be a hard core ps2 gamer; however, a lot has changed sense then. But the point is, I remember my wife (when we were dating) telling me she had played so far through insaniquarium (I can’t remember exactly how far through she played). Nevertheless, I laughed. At that time I looked at casual games, as many do, as a joke, or perhaps better stated as, a “game clone”. I didn’t even look at them as games.
You nailed it on the head when you used the term “disdain” I hope you will go into more about what different game mechanics make players feel. Perhaps about other gamers or the world in general. For example, “point & click” games make the players feel the state of “flow” so strongly that it is somehow independent from the video game itself, like you stated
“Casual players do not consider themselves gamers, and might even be offended by the suggestion.”
On the other hand, people who play “Halo” are generally very proud to be gamers, and love to challenge others who go by the same name. There is a huge divide between casual games and other games, but I think for game mechanic designers, we must have an understanding why there is a difference, and what those differences mean in the long run.
How many barriers must there be(or maybe more appropriately, how INTENSE should the barriers be) before a casual game is no longer a casual game? I realize the question is kind of silly/nebulous, but I spent a long time thinking that casual games are defined by the time involved, and not necessarily the way they are approached/played.
What would you say if I someone you that Gears Of War was very casual to them? They picked it up and had little to no difficulty expressing themselves, and could easily play it for 15 minutes at a time and then drop it for a 3 days. Is this a casual game in a different(albeit extreme) context?
(These are not leading questions by the way, they are genuine inquiries. I know next to NOTHING of these casual creations…)
Thanks for the brain dump. Much love.
@Anthony: Yeah, you’ve totally got it. I think the idea is to generalize a bit – we know that casual games do something very right, as do “core games”. The question is, what are the differences, what are the similarities, and how can we add those to our design tool chest.
@Ben: When you say the time involved you’re looking at how long each session of gameplay lasts…think of this as a common component of casual games – that they can be played productively for very short intervals – not as THE criteria for identifying them. The difference between a casual game and playing a game casually, if that makes sense. That what I consider casual games (EG Diner Dash, Bejeweled etc…) can be very easily picked up and put down, is a design decision, an enticement. The reality is that people tend to play casual games for long, long stretches at a time. The fact that they can be picked up or put down is something that helps both their initial and lasting appeal: if you feel like you’re picking up something light and easy to put down, it’s less intimidating. And that’s kind of the casual design mantra in general – everything is geared towards making the game less intimidating to people who haven’t played many games before. Hence the familiarity of the point and click interface, choice of themes, and simplicity of gameplay. That’s what makes a game casual imo; easy in, easy out is just another brick in that foundation. That make sense?
“This is also why it’s so damn hard to make a game that’s completely ‘original’ and employs few conventions from other games that the designer can assume the player will understand to some degree.”
I think this is a really good point to make…because a lot of people have the idea of “I want to make something that’s so unique that it will change how games are played” and imo, these always end up as huge failures (to a certain degree) and other developers will pick apart these games and steal certain parts and make more successful games because it’s much easier(maybe even better) to do a few original things and do them well, than try to do something completely ‘original’.
Even the ‘original’ games, that we think of as ground breaking, they get their concept from another some part of our daily lives…things that people generally understand…like how a paint brush works (okami) or how to operate remote control toys (Katamari).
I also think that a big draw for casual games comes from the idea that you’re playing against yourself. Many of casual gamers (assuming) don’t really have interest in saving princesses or defeating ancient evil warlords…the real opponent in a casual game is yourself and your skill (and a timer)…everything really centers around the player and his/her skill. There also isn’t that stigma of it being ‘odd’ or nerdy. I think casual gamers probably feel the same way about games/gamers the same way I feel about Dungeon and Dragons…when I hear about it..I’m like…that sounds kinda cool, but I’ve never played it because I didn’t want to be a part of that ‘club’…mostly because I’ve also never known anyone who was apart of that ‘club’…so there are a lot of innate misconceptions.
I think that very soon in the future there will be ’semi-casual’ games…that will start incorporating elements of ‘regular’ games into casual games…bridging that gap between regular games and casual games…also allowing many casual players to become ‘gamers’. Also, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to think that at some point, companies will start to recognize the casual players and the potential for profit…and take out some of the ‘hardcore’ parts of their game and create a separate ‘casual’ version. To some degree, they have this now, with their ‘easy/casual’ mode…but I think the separation between ‘easy/casual’ and hard…will eventually grow to almost be different games.
@Aldo: The last paragraph you talk about casual games and “bridging the gap” between the two, and that the time is coming soon. But, I think that future is now. Look at the Nintendo Wii a “casual game power-house”. But what’s even more amazing about it is the gargantuan popularity of it. The case with the Wii is simply, that the world has been waiting for a console to bring casual gamers together with hard-core gamers. I definitely think we are in the middle of a “video game revolution” we will look back at the release of this system and say to ourselves “oh yea, I remember when only certain people played video games and we called them “gamers”. Anyways, in short, we are all graduating just around the time where two types of games are colliding; we need to make sure that we have a good understanding of what a video game is otherwise we may get left in the dust.
I wonder if casual game genres can or will get to a point where the barrier of entry is too high for an unfamiliar player to easily get their bearings. You see similar patterns in clones and sequels of Diner Dash, Bejeweled and Zuma that you see in FPS games. New modes, gimmicky game mechanic additions, higher production values and budgets, more story, the assumption that players are familiar with the genre and controls.
While casual games players are unlikely to want to play an FPS even with streamlined controls due to the nature of genre (things like spacial navigation and motion sickness are huge barriers keeping a lot of people from navigating a 3D space regardless of control scheme) I imagine its a lot easier if you start with something like Wolfenstein and move your way up through Doom, Quake, etc. Of course, if the incentive to play is high enough, any player will be willing to overcome some of those barriers. I assume this is how you get people whose first FPS was Halo.
I also just realized that everyone posting is a student of yours :p. Can I get extra credit also?
.