Where are all the non-casual games?

Lately I've noticed, and maybe this has been going on a for a while, that the game downloads area of Apple.com is so often full of casual games. Typically the graphics are really nice and polished and actually a high quality, but the kind of games they are is usually the casual match-3, hidden object hunt, mahjong, sodoku, puzzle etc type of games.

These games also often have quite a `social` or `real-life` type of theme, like working in a diner, babysitting, working in a chocolate shop, etc and they usually feature human characters that people can relate to - it's almost following along the same lines as the popularity of `reality tv` shows. This is obviously a whole different market to the `old days`, focussing on your everyday regular-lifestyle casual human and relating to them on the level of the kind of experiences they have in their real lives, rather than so much along the lines of fantasy.

Theses games are not bad or wrong, obviously there is an increasing market for them and it's much easier for independent developers to create relatively simple games, but what has happened to the classic game styles? Where are the platform games, the shoot-em-ups, the beat-em-ups, the graphical adventures? Do you think that these classic genre's have dissolved into a generic pool of gaming, largely driven by 3D environments, or can there still be a place for/revival of these games? Have things moved on too far in terms of what society finds interesting or how they think, that such game styles are no longer appealing? Can there be a hybrid game style between what we have now and what we used to have? What has happened and where are things heading?

These days, if it can't be played with a mouse, it doesn't get made.

And that's that, really. Some of the genres you mentioned; platformers, shoot em ups and beat em ups, don't lend themselves well to mouse control.

There'll always be a market for hardcore or traditional game types, but developing them requires a larger investment of time and effort, and therefore I suspect that most independent developers consider them to be too risky to take on.

Adventure games lend themselves well to mouse control but developing an adventure game is a huge undertaking, requiring high-level skills in a multitude of artistic areas (art, music, writing). And they represent a subset of a relatively unpopular niche genre which only makes things worse.

Of course. I've been criticised by some for writing a match three game. I don't like the genre but I've got mouths to feed and bills to pay, and its a relatively safe genre. The critics are always entitled to their opinion but at the end of the day, its maximising potential sales that matters to me.

A lot of casual game developers really struggle to make ends meet in order to stay doing what they want to do. So yes, doing something wildly different is a gamble, and a risk too far for many.

We all need financial security, that's why we take the safe option and make games that we know people want, rather than trying to persuade them to try something new.

I don't think it's a case of there being much less demand for non-casual games as such, but with gaming becoming more common-place I think it has become relatively less demanded. Ergo, less supplied. It's a shame as I'm not into casual games.

I recenlty bought a few games for my mobile that were based upon PC games.. Age of Empires, Caesar and The Settlers. AoE was ok, could definately see the AoE in it (though too clumbsy to play on a phone), Caesar and The Settlers are fun to play, but clearly they are "dumbed-down"/"more actionary" than their PC equivlents.

I can see why but I would like there to be a deeper set of startegy games to play on my mobile, as all these games have limited replayability for me. They're fun for a while but eventually I've pretty much done everything there is to do. Their design strategy seems to consist of making the single-player missions interesting and full of content, but then that's it, release time now boys!

Gfk, so you think that because so many people are using a mouse to do everything these days and it's much less common for computer users to own a joystick, that games are pretty much going mouse-control focussed and forgetting about keyboard/joystick focussed? I guess that's a sign of the times.

Back when there was such a thing as the `home computer` (spectrum/amstrad/atari/amiga/c64 etc), systems used by `enthusiasts`, joysticks seemed more popular and games were more original. Maybe at that time computers in general were too specialized for the average public to use and so you got these specialist niche markets with interesting games. The question is whether a sufficient portion of the public these days an be persuaded to be enthusiastic about and interested in those kind of games again.

Maybe people have become used to being entertained and lazy at the computer, not wanting to put so much effort into making the game what it is. I wonder if, in a way, that means games are becoming less interactive?

You still know somebody who owns and uses a joystick? I haven't seen a stick in years. Nowhere.

I think most hardcore gaming is done on consoles now, which makes the most economic sense for everybody involved, from the developers to the gamers.

I also believe that a lot of casual game playing is done on office computers, at work, in breaks or in times when business is slow. I've worked for a couple of months in a clinic in Spain, and the girls there were completely Moorhuhn-crazy. For those who don't know: It's that silly game where you shoot these crazy looking chickens. http://www.bella-ben.de/shop/moorhuhn_com/

None of the ladies had a computer at home, by the way. But Moorhuhn was installed everywhere. And some other casual games, too.

I also know many people who are not the typical gamer and who would never consciously purchase a computer for gaming. Still, they logon to some (multi-player) online games.


The highest-tech game Crysis was a flop. You can blame the game itself (we all know that it's not a really good game), or you can regard it as a trend that the market is going away from games that require you to spend thousands of bucks on hardware only to play another stupid shooter. And why would you want to buy a high-end desktop computer for a couple of thousands bucks when you can play the same crappy game on your HD-TV with a 300 USD next-generation console?



When you watch a movie like "Free Rainer", you get introduced to the idea that modern TV raises a race of gullible, stupid consumer mutants that have little to no intelligence. If that's true, then you already know why games have to become less interactive... :-p

Do you think that because bigger business focus on making the kind of games that make the most money, like first person shooters and such, that there just aren't that many commercial classic-style games being released, and so there aren't many people targetting that audience or copying that style? I mean, lets say back in the Amiga days there was a major focus on platform games, shootemups, adventure games and the like, with really no 3D games at all, and because the `software houses` were producing these games (e.g. bitmap brothers, team17, psygnosis, Core, etc) a lot of others also followed. Is it just that we're lacking leadership in this area?

I've got a joystick that I occasionally use with platform games if they support it or emulators.

Basically you are talking about "retro" games which is a small market which contains people who pirate games and play FPSs and console games - this includes me btw, except for the pirating but. So if you make a great platform game for PC it simply won't make enough sales to make it viable unless you are funded by a university or charity or something. Of course a decent platform game will have a better chance on XBLA. It a shame, because I also like these sort of games, but the market is financially driven and if people won't buy that sort of game, then no one will make them. I'd LOVE to make them btw, but until the retro fans stop pirating or expecting everything for free (e.g. via emulators or whatever) it's a no go.

I also love good old fashioned jump and run games. I think you have much better chances with that sort of games on the Mac than you would on PC. The PC market is more than saturated; it's already drowned. There are only few games available in Mac or even Mac only versions, and the Mac also is a traditional Shareware market. I think that makes it quite attractive.

About the 'lacking leadership in this area' question: I don't know. In a world where everybody prefers Die Hard and Terminator over Schiller's Wallenstein or Goethe's Faust, where cheap American throw-away music sells more records than Beethoven and Wagner and where everybody rather eats in McDonald's than preparing a nice meal at home, I think quality certainly is no longer a selling point for anything.

There have been lots of interesting, but devastating studies about the psychology of the masses. A group of people grows simultaneously in size AND stupidity; the more people there are, the dumber they behave. No wonder explosions and naked flesh sell better than intelligent puzzles.

..as mr. Winni said 100%

I don't think that it's a matter of pirating or excepting something for free anymore as the situation is different than is has been on the Amiga, this sounds a little bit too much after stereotypes. But the situation certainly is harder because you are facing a much stronger competition in form of that there are a lot of very good retro and free games already around, also if they only exist in your memory this way.

I've done casual games since 97 and there are genres which are a lot easier than others. You really have to do something outstanding which is just touching the player like for instance Geometry Wars managed to, then it also will sell fine. If you can't come up with something like this then you're better off with other genres if you're after making money out of it.

Personally i can enjoy both small and big ones, it depends on each case but i hope that after we all got bored enough from casual here and casual there that there will establish a third form of games which will fit well in between the casual and big games, maybe like full price games have been on the Amiga. More interesting and demanding than the usual casual stuff but also not as big and time consuming like those multi million dollar beasts. If you're fine with a certain world then episodic gaming also could have been a solution, if you could do it better than what has been done in most cases so far.

Still looking forward to Bionic Commando Rearmed.

What I'd give for a fun, colourful and simple, high-res 2d platformer/RPG in the style of Wonderboy: The Dragon's Trap. Alas, no one makes those sort of games anymore - certainly not for the PC.

I'd play a PC version of Castle of Illusion, or Thunderforce 3, but that's about it.

I wouldn't panic - computer games haven't been around for very long and what people want is always changing. Who knows what will be big bucks in 10 years?

I didn't know you were into orgies with fireworks!

I wonder if now that people are getting used to using OpenGL and more recent DirectX incarnations, with physics and high-resolution graphics and 3D elements, if we'll start to see a sort of revival of 2D/retro type games but with `ultra advanced 2D` graphics. That's pretty much what I'm aiming to do and I think maybe that's the transitional sweet-spot that taumel just mentioned between cutting edge ultra 3d and pleasant-but-casual 2d. Basically taking 2D to the next level.

I wonder also about the level of development technologies which seem to have become increasingly higher-level over the years. Gone are the days of writing entire games in assembly language. Now there are a plethora of engines and game creators and Blitz, all which allow people to enter into game development and have a more advanced feature set already available to them. I think that the bar has been raised on three levels: a) The standard of cutting edge games technology has become the leading 3D games, b) The standard of what used to be the low end 2D retro-ish games has now become advanced 2D, and c) now there is a new bracket opening up on the lower entry-level end which we're calling casual games.

Casual games used to be much simpler but now are taking on more complexity and it looks to me as though some of them are starting to open up to more advanced 2D environments like platform games and shootemups. It's almost as if this low-difficulty bracket of games is becoming gradually more advanced that it's starting to approach the levels of retro games. And now also some people are experimenting with 2D techniques that are quite far in advance of what most retro games could ever do - physics, high-res graphics, 3d acceleration, particle engines, etc. And we all know how 3D gradually gets better and better and more technically advanced. Who knows, at some point along the line maybe casual games will be sufficiently advanced that all of a sudden we'll have ultra-casual games as a whole new introductory level of simple easy-to-play games, which when compared to `regular casual games` at that point would seem as casual and easy as today's casual games. It's the march of technology and constantly striving to make things bigger better faster more.

I agree the Mac market has a lot of potential because Mac users are quality focussed and open minded about trying things, plus there are just not that many games for it, especially not more advanced games. I wish BlitzMax would compile for or somehow work with XCode to work on the iPhone because I'm sure that's going to be a very big new market. Also the Linux market is currently quite small and niche, mainly because Linux is still not user friendly enough, but there's a lot of opportunity there for future expansion and new games.

See, I don't think that technology has been the problem or that the existence of more people with OpenGL or DirectX expertise is the solution. The problem is that complicated games (relatively speaking) require a diverse skill set that the average indy developer doesn't possess. For example, if you want to create a 2d platformer with "ultra advanced 2d" graphics then you'll need to be highly skilled at producing 2d art and animation. You'll also need to have the ability or resources to produce a huge quantity of high quality artwork - certainly far more so than for the average casual game.

In short, non-casual games require a greater quantity of high quality media assets than a typical casual game. This is the key barrier to the production of more non-casual games, not a lack of technological expertise.

LOL! It's even better when they're in old roman style. ;-)

Perhaps also high-resolution displays are prohibitive for generating lots of hand-drawn per-pixel artwork? It was easier with a 320x200 resolution but try drawing a detailed screen at 1920x1080 or whatever. Maybe this trend toward higher resolutions has been making it harder and harder to produce the type of games that need hand-drawn artwork, versus the new trend of trying to get the computer to generate the graphics in realtime?

JustLuke hit the nail on the head. People make casual games because they're easier/cheaper to make, and most of the casual game gameplay formulas have been tried and tested. They're simple recipes. Things like higher resolution displays play their part, but most developers choose not to tackle 'heavy on production' platformers, when a basic casual game will generate as much (if not more) revenue. Some developers see this 'low-effort' effort is working, and follow along. That's why the PC gaming market is flooded with things like match-3 clones. The Mac market will soon follow.



I think you've missed the point of why casual games sell. You can win some people over with your graphical choice, but the main reason casual games sell well is because they give the average person in a modern society exactly what they want- entertainment that can be quickly played without the need for serious commitment. The success of casual games is not driven by graphical innovation. You'd do better to investivate what it is people want in society today, than find graphical sweet-spots in the market.

Yeah I know that already.

I think the reason platformers are not made and FPS's (and other 3d adventure games) are not made are two totally different reasons, and it stems entirely from the fact that one is 2d and the other is 3d.

Lets face it; the 2d game is on its way out. Really, the only 2d games you see left are isometric/psuedoiso games because they mimic 3d. Ever since the beginning of electronic gaming, we have strived for the ability to walk "into" things and a heightened sense of exploration and environment. Many gamers today never truly experienced the 2d era, so there is no appreciation for it. In their eyes, 3d is the automobile, why go back to the horse and buggy save for nostalgia/stubborness/. or lack of funds?

As for 3d games, why bother. Its too much work to create the same game a big publisher will make. And FPS is an FPS. Here's a consumer: "Oh, here's a kinda cool game I found online from a small publisher I've never heard of, and the same sort of game from EA, which I know will provide good gameplay and its safer/less hassle to buy." Who are they going to choose?

And whats leftover is the casual game. Games for people that don't care enough about games to really get into one and play it. Games that can be produced with small gimmicks attached and be called a sequel. And they sell, which the reasons why have already been established.

If you're making a FPS or platformer or RPG or whatever, thats fantastic. But keep in mind you're target audience will most likely be... well... other independent developers.

In closing, I'd like to just say that this is a generality... some developers have broken the mold, and kudos to you. But in general...

I disagree. I don't think people think that way at all. Great 2D games are just as popular with gamers today as 3D... if not more so. The casual gaming scene is proof of this, as well as other games like Metal Slug, and a whole host of 2D games on platforms like the DS. There are a few people who think the way you've mentioned, but they aren't the majority. Most gamers care more about the type of game they're playing, (amongst other things like social networking, etc) than the way it's presented graphically.



Awesum... but then, why are you talking about things as if you've missed the point?

Hey, this is not about me, it's about the topic. I am interested in where you guys see the market being now, how it got here, and where it is heading. That's the point of this discussion, not who misinterpreted who and who said what and who is right or wrong.

I would like to explore what the potential is for more advanced 2D games in particular, ie those that are not `casual` and which are not entirely 3D. I think 2D and 3D are blending sufficiently that you could do a 2D game in a kind of sideways-on 3D environment, where you still scroll in the X and Y directions but not so much in Z, except maybe some zooming effects here and there. Is there a market for this? Could a market be created for this if the product is good enough?

Fair enough, but you did start talking about what you felt (sweet-spots and all). It's natural someone like me would come along and say, "I disagree with your analysis of things." That is a part of how I see the market. Personally, I think this thread is just going to talk the issue around in circles, mainly because your questioning is a tad wack. For example:



Of course... a market will always appear if the game is 'good enough'. Do you mean to ask, "Will this graphical style have a large impact on how well a game is accepted?" In that case, I'm not convinced it will, but for the sake of arguement Viewtiful Joe is one example of exactly what you've mentioned. Whether it was the graphical use of 2D/3D which added a great deal to its popularity, or whether it was simply the aspects of the game (characters, story, gameplay, etc)... good question.

That kind of graphical style is quite common. It can work, but getting it to look right is a matter of artistic skill. Many indie titles that attempt it don't mesh the two very well.

On phones most games are casual and 2d. Considering the lower resolution screens and the clumsier interface, will 3d become popular?

Well in saying what I have, there is a game released for free on XBOX arcaded called Aegis Wing, which is your typical side scrolling space ship game. Its 2D, but in the background are some stunning 3D graphics. Its a very good game and leads me to believe that 2D games can still make it.



I disagree. If this were the case, wouldn't we see a more diverse field of gameplay as opposed to each company producing the same FPS with better graphics? My point being, from a company's standpoint, impressing the consumer with better graphics is primary to gameplay, which is evidenced in the rehashing of the same type of game time and time again.

I think we see a lot of similar games because a company sees a particular format as successful and copies it as a safe bet, and gives it better graphics simply because better graphics are demanded by that point.

And in light of newer 3D advances, for a traditional 2D game to be popular, it would have to be both unique and really really well done.

Because no company wants to take that risk, whats left is a common game thats easy to produce, a.k.a. the casual game.

Czar Flavius just said what I wanted to :)

Well I agree with the assumption that it is because it is a "safe bet". But I believe it has become a safe bet due to the advent of 3D, as stated before in my previous posts.

--It upsets me that the gaming industry is settling for safe bets though... I've been waiting a long time for something to wow me. Match 3 just doesn't cut it...--

Is not the safe-betting of big companies and easy-betting of casual developers an open doorway to a nice market that is currently untapped?

I've been down that road. You might think it would be, but what you produce can often be seen as niche.



Perhaps, but safe bets have been around since the advent of gaming.

Exactly. And the huge risk involved in attempting to tap into new markets is typically too much for independent developers to take. For independents who rely on the income of their games, a "safe bet" is their only option.

Are 2d, non-casual games still viable? I'd say yes, if the gameplay is compelling and the artwork superb.

Is there an untapped market? Possiby. But few people possess the unique combination of complete, high level skills, money, and daring that is required in order to successfully access it.

@ImaginaryHuman

Sure there is a market for it and there are some great examples out there too. I recently bought Trials 2 and Crazy Machines 2 on steam, which are still played in 2D, but made in fully 3D. You can rotate a bit, but they play as the original versions.

I forgot to mention, a few match-3 style games have wowed me. Puzzle Quest and Saqqarah come to mind.