Question of the Day - Casual Games

[Xavier]

I can't make up my mind about this one. Maybe
you can help. Tell me what do you think.

Do you consider a PBB games to belong to the Casual Game "genre" ?

[jannesiera]

I can't make up my mind about this one. Maybe
you can help. Tell me what do you think.

Do you consider a PBB games to belong to the Casual Game "genre" ?

That depends on which PBBG but most are. Definitely.

[OldRod]

I consider them a casual game - you can log in, play a few minutes and log out.  As opposed to a non-casual game where you would have a lot of grinding to accomplish anything, or maybe not so much grinding, but to accomplish anything worthwhile takes a long time.

[JGadrow]

Janne said it best. Just as most things in this world, the distinction is made on a case-by-case basis. But, many that I've played are casual. Honestly, if I want a non-casual experience, I'll go play a distributed game to take advantage of the nice eye candy.

[Xavier]

I understand your point. Can you show me a browser game that you'd consider to be more than a casual one?

[tellmore]

check tribalwars.
once you get in to it, you will say goodbye to social life.

is addicting, first sight simple to play, but thats a browser game that requires like 12 hours a day if playd casual.

[gnoh]

Travian as well,  I don't agree with the 12 hours play as a casual player but alot of the real time strategy browser games require almost constant login to get near the top.

In fact they say you can't win travian unless you play as a team(more than one player per account)

[jannesiera]

Travian as well,  I don't agree with the 12 hours play as a casual player but alot of the real time strategy browser games require almost constant login to get near the top.

In fact they say you can't win travian unless you play as a team(more than one player per account)

Well, many players don't play to win. That is a misconception I hear from time to time on this forum. Not everyone plays to get to the top, that is an important fact. Many players play a lot less but still have fun. They are happy if they can take a few villages and built up a nice little kingdom, happy supporting a friend or fighting a small war.

I would even go so far to say that most players don't play to "win" but rather for a whole bunch of other reasons, this is a guess, of course. I don't know that for a fact.

[gnoh]

Well, many players don't play to win. That is a misconception I hear from time to time on this forum. Not everyone plays to get to the top, that is an important fact. Many players play a lot less but still have fun. They are happy if they can take a few villages and built up a nice little kingdom, happy supporting a friend or fighting a small war.

I would even go so far to say that most players don't play to "win" but rather for a whole bunch of other reasons, this is a guess, of course. I don't know that for a fact.

I agree with that totally,  it's the friends that you make whilst playing that keep you playing.  Although i'm partial to chasing the top spot in games that I play it's far more important to be part of something.
this is probably going to get flamed but i'm happy to exploit the people that aim to get #1 whilst my main emphasis will be on team play.

[Chris]

I would even go so far to say that most players don't play to "win" but rather for a whole bunch of other reasons, this is a guess, of course. I don't know that for a fact.

I wonder, if a game has no rounds and never ends, can you even play to win?

[Harkins]

Yeah, a game without rounds or end is 'won' when one group of players drives every other competitive player away. It's the ultimate fate of farming games.

But I think in this context "playing to win" is a reference to David Sirlin's excellent free book of the same title about how to compete at the highest level.

[jannesiera]

I would even go so far to say that most players don't play to "win" but rather for a whole bunch of other reasons, this is a guess, of course. I don't know that for a fact.

I wonder, if a game has no rounds and never ends, can you even play to win?

I used "win" in the sense of being first in the main ranking.

In this case you are right though that it is impossible to achieve that if you don't join the world from the very first second. Even then it you can't hope for it if you're not online every second of the day.

I like the system naruto arena uses though. Though there is no persistent "world" so you can't directly implement the same system, you can learn some valuable lessons from it.

Naruto arena is a sort of tactical mini-game you play against a human opponent (PvP). It is persistent in the sense you can unlock new "characters" to play with by completing some battles with a certain condition (e.g. win 3 battles in a row with character "X") and there is a persistent ranking. It is a pretty simple ranking.

When you start a battle the computer will search for an opponent close to your level. The opponent can have a higher or a lower level. When you win the battle you go up in the ranking (a few places, more places for defeating a stronger opponent). When you lose the battle you go down in the ranking.

Naruto arena is also a game where training really helps. You could compare it to chess. If you practise a lot you get notably better. So you can place this game very casualy (a battle takes a few minutes) and when you are ready you can go for the top. The tricky part is that if you don't play you go down in the ranking (because of other players jumping over you) but it won't bother you since you play it casualy anyway. You can go for the top any time. Now the good part is that it is perfectly possible to become number one! I did it, it sure was fun!

Oh, and when you go down in the ranking, it stores your top ranking so you can brag to your friends. So you'll have proof you have been number one.

I think it's a game with many design lessons, especially regarding strategy gameplay, multiplayer, etc. but if you're not into the "theme" it's won't do you much good either.