Comments on: Games less casual

By: Sergey

Sergey — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:20:41 +0000

I am happy to find this interesting blog. Thanks for all.

By: Michaël Samyn

Michaël Samyn — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:24:04 +0000

Thank you, Mineral. Nintendo has definitely broken the mold and proven that there are other ways to be successful, very successful. You can really feel the influence of this when you talk to business people in the industry. They are a lot less certain about their “proven models” and a lot more open to experimentation.

That being said, most games that have been made for the Wii and the DS don’t exactly expand the medium. One could say that Nintendo has removed all the fat from games and reduced them to a more pure state, with a focus on playfulness over challenge. The best games for their consoles have been light-hearted and whimsical. This has allowed them to access a type of gamer who was left behind by bombastic excess and skill and time requirements of games on other consoles.

Nintendo, in a way, has returned to the original casualness of games. And that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But in essence, this is not innovative. It embraces the roots of gaming. But it doesn’t go much beyond that. Yet.

By: Mineral

Mineral — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:49:36 +0000

I wish every game developer would have your opinion on that, recently I have been very frustrated with the developement of the gaming industry, never before it was that profit orientated. Mostly sequels to minize the risk of a financial disaster, small to none innovation because EA owns almost every other bigger game company. And almost the only two genres still existing are FPS and RTS and MMORPG, I still remember times with lots of flight simulators, adventures, RPG and alike, and most of them were good.

And for Console gaming . . how is your view on Nintendo? Are they innovative for giving us Wii & DS or are they making shallow games? What do you think?

However, for what I´ve seen so far from ToT I could hug every last one of you. Please be there forever.

By: Michaël Samyn

Michaël Samyn — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:28:12 +0000

The problem with such mini-games is that, while they may be enjoyable onto themselves, they often interrupt the flow of the game and break the experience of the fiction. I’d say, let mini-games flourish on cell phones. And remove everything from other games that does not contribute to the story, the theme, the feeling and atmosphere.

By: Georgy Beloglazov

Georgy Beloglazov — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:09:01 +0000

Thank you for your very interesting opinion. If we speak about quest-adventure games, developers often meet casual temptations which force them to implement “mini-games”, puzzles etc. in their storyline, to “fill” the gameplay and add some interaction. I wonder how would you describe the ideal adventure game for you?

By: Eden

Eden — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:51:58 +0000

Fair enough :)

By: Paul Eres

Paul Eres — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:14:29 +0000

The more I read these the more converted I become, it’s almost scary. That may be a ‘lie repeated often enough becomes truth’ thing, but maybe not.

In particular I agree with your criticism of gameplay that it’s usually too boring and too challenging, often keeping people from seeing the interesting parts of the game.

However, I still like playing games and am not totally adverse to having both gameplay and interactive stories in one game. I just finished Persona 3, a Japanese RPG, and I loved both its story and its gameplay. But perhaps the two should be more separate, so that either / both are optional, and the player can partake of both in whatever degree they wish. Forcing someone to beat a level to see more story or more of the game world, or to sit through a lengthy story segment to get to the next level or challenge, is annoying for people who strongly prefer one over the other.

By: axcho

axcho — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:47:20 +0000

I think you’re honing in on something with these posts, not just repeating the same thing over and over necessarily. Seeing it from this angle, in terms of “casual gameplay” does help me. :) I’ve recently decided to get good at casual gameplay so I can feel confident moving onto more experimental territory. Accessibility has not been my strong point so far. :p

By: Cody

Cody — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:32:15 +0000

Wait, less demands on the player for interaction = less casual? What the…? Casual and not casual is something to be determined by the viewer/player. I can watch a movie casually, or I can become totally engrossed in it.

Some players play these more challenging games and become totally immersed in the virtual control, virtual environment.

I do agree with you that the interaction could be more interesting. Frequently I avoid good, highly rated games simply because I dread running and jumping through another bland environment.

Developers are trying, though. I mean, it’s being introduced reeeeaally slowly, because most players and developers do not particularly wish for more, or perhaps are not even capable of imagining something greater, but. In time, you know. I’m feeling optimistic.

… but still somehow pessimistic at the same time. Oh well.

By: Michaël Samyn

Michaël Samyn — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:44:09 +0000

I don’t even like movies that much. But I have to admit that they are better at certain things. Providing content for different kinds of people, for instance.

I don’t think I’m the only person in the entire universe who thinks that many current games are too difficult, even if their worlds and stories are attractive (but maybe I’m one of very few game designers who thinks so?). That doesn’t mean I want them to be movies. I just want them to be easier to play.

(Only if that’s not an option, I would want them to be movies, because at least then I can see something (lately I have seen more games through YouTube speedruns than I have actually interacted with them…).)