boholikeu said:
I know this post wasn't directed at me, but it touched on the indie/casual debate we were having earlier.
Based on the above it seems that you define a casual game as a game that "promotes fun above art", but wouldn't this describe most games in general? How is this hurting the video game industry?
Not that it promotes fun per se, but that it promotes
simplicity. Simplicity in design and mechanics. Take the tetris example. It looks simple, the rules are simple. Make lines with the blocks with the four or five variations of block that fall down randomly. It does get more complicated the longer it goes on for, but the core design of the game is simple. Take Zuma again. All you do is match coloured balls. That's it. Your avatar does not (for the most part) move, all you do is aim the mouse and click. You match blue to blue and red to red. You get the odd powerup, but the design and execution is simplistic.
Now take Bioshock, like we discussed earlier. It's not a simple game. There's moderate exploration as you search side passages for plasmids and ammo. You have the illusion of freedom due to the nature of linearity, but you can still explore a shop or something that's off the beaten path to scavenge for supplies. The enemies behave differently. You have multiple ways to dispatch them, both in terms of guns and plasmids. But most significantly, the plasmids you choose to take with you significantly alter the way in which you play the game, enter combat, and deal with puzzles.
Both games are fun (subjective to whether the person playing them considers either one to be fun) but with one very marked difference between them. Zuma is simple, Bioshock is not.
It is this simplicity that can have an adverse effect on video games. I think the core audience craves a more complex experience. This is why copies of shooters have a 'gimmick'. The reason we have, say, the time manipulation trick in Timeshift and Singularity is because the core audience is not entirely satisfied with the bare-bones Doom 3 clone. They want something more out of it. For Halo, i would say the gimmick would be the shielding that the player and tougher enemies have. It doesn't have to be a big gimmick, but it's something that makes the game more than "pull trigger, kill enemy". Halo is not call of duty; you have to deal a lot of punishment to kill things, but you can take a lot of punishment as well. The mindset between playing Call of Duty, where few bullets can kill you online, is far removed from that of halo, where you empty a veritable barrage of bullets into each other before someone is dead.
Casual games may also have a gimmick going for them, but that is all they have going for them. Where non-casual games shine is in the ability to not rely solely on their gimmick. In the case of shooters, you have an option of various guns, you examine your environment to determine where to take cover, you decide who's a priority target. More than just the base mechanics of the game are required to fully engage the player. You may have to think five moves ahead in Tetris to avoid a game over, but you're still looking at a single screen of falling blocks. The core audience demands more than this. Diverse environments, engaging characters, and things that only outlandish production values can produce and push the boundaries of. By demanding improvement over refinement, we do not become stationary. Where i will play the devil's advocate, however, is saying that the need for refinement to please the casual audience may work in the favour of the industry as a whole. It's like an Alfa Romeo. It might be good to look at, but the car breaks down so often that it's just not practical. Casuals demand refinement, the core audience demand improvement. A balance must be sought, i think, to maintain a healthy status quo.
