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. My gaming experience is mostly based on playing popular first person shooter multiplayer games, where the only interest I had was to beat other players and be on the top of the scoreboard.I don't know if migrating this idea to casual games would work, in style making 2D MP tanks or simple 3D MP cartoon shooter. And cosindering this fact:

Quote: "Casual gaming demographics also vary greatly from those of traditional computer games, as the typical casual gamer is older and more predominantly female, with over 74% of those purchasing casual games being women" - wikipedia

it is very doubtful that making a simple shooter game makes any sense at all. [Edited by - dMaze149 on September 26, 2008 1:43:38 PM]

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.

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.

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).