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? .

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.

@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?

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.

“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.