For those who've forgotten,
IHOG = Interactive Hidden Object Game

(and when I say IHOG in this post, I'm including those "casual adventure" games that are identical to IHOGs except for omitting hidden object scenes.)

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Casual games have been defined as something you can pick up and play anytime -- play 10 minutes, don't play for 6 months, pick up the game again and continue playing without missing a beat. For example, Solitaire or Bejeweled or Bubble Bobble can be picked up and played at any time, even with months or years between playing sessions.

I haven't found this to be the case with IHOG's. If I play a demo, buy the game, then for whatever reason don't get around to playing it for 2 or 3 months, I don't remember anything about it and have to start over. I don't remember the story or what my immediate goal was in the game. A modern IHOG is not "casual" in the sense of being able to pick it up and continue playing at any time -- at least not for those without excellent memories. You either have to keep using the Hint until ancient memories are triggered and you start remembering your goal, or you have to start the game over.

The earliest hidden object games from 11 or 12 years ago, for example "Hidden Expedition: Titanic" from 2006, had little if any story and could definitely be considered "casual." You could just play through the screens finding object in the lists without having to keep track of anything between playing sessions.

But as hidden object games got more complex and became more like "adventure games," they lost their casual aspect. The early type of "hidden object games" don't seem to be made anymore, and the ones still being sold may not even work on current Windows versions because of increased security features in 64-bit versions of Windows (or other incompatibilities).

I would imagine the same "not really casual" thing is true for Time Management or "Farming" games as for IHOGs. I don't play them, but don't you have to keep track of when things will happen that need attention? How much will be forgotten after a month of not playing and have to be relearned if you wish to continue?

Do you think the definition of "Casual" as
"a game you can pick up and continue playing at any time"
is really relevant to IHOGs?
Or to Time Management games?
Or to any game where you have to keep track of what's going on in the game between playing sessions.

If not, what do you think is a better definition of "casual?"
Or do you think modern IHOGs are really not "casual" at all, and have more in common with what's usually considered as "adventure games" than with the original hidden object games from 11 or 12 years ago?

Since the current crop of IHOG's/HOPA's still include hidden object scenes and mini-games, I think they can still be called casual. True adventure games don't usually include Hints and Skips, collectibles, choice of difficulty, etc. They require much more thinking and mucking about. Most IHOG's can easily be enjoyed by even those new to gaming - or the casual gamer, if you will.

Are you saying that from the perspective of someone who's played adventure games before or from someone who started with HOGs or IHOGs?
Because I've seen posts at Big Fish complaining about IHOGs being too hard.

There are certainly some modern games being classified as "adventure games" that aren't any more difficult than the average IHOG, where the character actually tells you what to do next if you take too long.

I got started gaming with "Syberia", "The Longest Journey", and the "Darkfall" series. I got hooked on IHOG's once I played the early "Ravenhearst" games. Given that current IHOG's offer a choice of difficulty, as well as Hints and Skips, maps, etc., I don't see how they can be too hard to learn to play. Some of the mini-games can be challenging though. Again, there's the Skip option. I haven't played a true adventure game for quite a while. None that I've played in the past provided any sort of in-game help. Thank goodness for walkthroughs.

ETA: Besides, young people are pretty game savvy. And since developers are offering games for various platforms, it makes sense for them to make them more interesting.

I asked because since I started with adventure games I don't think I'm the best judge of what someone who started with casual games would find difficult.
I do know the same game could have comments of "too difficult" and "too easy" from different people.

If someone has played adventure games before, IHOGs might be easy.
But what about someone who has never played a computer game before.
Would they have "no problem at all" picking up an IHOG or is there a learning curve?

A bit of a learning curve. But shoudn't take long once one learns how they work. Most are pretty intuitive and provide plenty of guidance. I would think someone who had never played a comouter game before would expect that there would be a learning curve, just as it goes for any new experience.

I would guess that a person who is already familiar with Adventure games would tend to find Casuals less demanding - even the latest ones.

The first Casual I played was many years ago (although years after I started playing Adventures) and was purely scene after scene of finding hidden objects.
I got bored to death and didn't touch another for a very long time - in fact until (I think) "Drawn" was released.
Then I also played the sequel.

But even after those two, it was a good while before I started to enjoy Casuals on a more regular basis.
[They had to have at least somewhat of a storyline to follow, even if it was the usual "locked, find a key, progress" ]

Someone new to gaming altogether could find any genre difficult for a while, don't you think ??

I started off playing Adventure games and didn't even realise that IHOGS existed until fairly recently. The first Hidden Object game I played was Three Cards To Midnight created by the Tex Murphy game developers, and I played it because it was created by them.

It was a few years after that came out that I discovered Big Fish and became briefly addicted to the IHOG games.

I tend to think of those type of games as casual and something to play when I run out of adventure games, which are my first love.

I have thought just about the same as Winx including stopping playing HOPAs for several years a while back, then coming back to discover I left just before things got good and I had missed a 10 or 12 great casuals and a couple of hundred good ones. The landscape had had undergone a renaissance.

I think one of the reasons HOPAs are called casual is arrogance. People who think of themselves as real gamers don't play point and click much or at all.

This then backs up a few layers into the notion of whether games without nonvirtual outcomes, for example, a shower of coins or Super Bowl ring, can be called "real" at all.

There were 2 sequels (3 games in all) in the Drawn series. All 3 are excellent games.

Drawn Games website

I have always considered the Drawn series to be adventure games, even though everybody insists on calling them casual games.

"I think one of the reasons HOPAs are called casual is arrogance. People who think of themselves as real gamers don't play point and click much or at all."

I think that's quite "an assumption" on your part, 8dognight, and not necessarily an accurate one

>>>>

I didn't realise there were TWO sequels, Uncle Reg.
Thanks for that info !!

I provide you with but one example. I could give many, many more. I am not including an URL.


"For those that identify themselves as hardcore, they believe that the casual gamers had to overcome such a small barrier of entry to get into games that they didn't earn the right to call themselves a gamer. The lack of nuance in casual games has allowed a swath of gaming simpletons entry into a higher pantheon of people capable of reaching past the primitiveness of Angry Birds or Wii Sports."

If you insist on examples including HOPAs I can find those, too. The above was the first one I grabbed.

I'm not insisting on anything, 8dognight. Nor am I impressed by "anonymous" quotes.

And in any case, how does one define a gamer as being "hardcore" ??
I've been playing all kinds of games for years and years and point & click has been one of the features of some of those games.
So does that rule me out of being "hardcore" ??
And does it really matter ??

Personally I don't give a hoot .... I will play any game I wish to play whatever its style of play and regardless of someone else's opinions.

I DO subscribe to the current broad definitions as laid out for us here at Gameboomers : RPG's etc, Adventures and Casuals : because I feel they are a good guide as to what a game might entail.

I didn't say I shared that belief. I merely reported what I have read, which offends me, as well. Geez.

Here's another one. NPR this time: "Casual gamers. That's the other big group that gets attention from game makers. Inside gaming culture, "hard core" and "casual" are tribal divisions.

For the hard core, gaming is the passion. Casual players enjoy games, yet they don't steep themselves in gamer culture rites like midnight openings. Still, as the gaming population grows, and gets older, exactly where those two tribes begin and end gets a little blurry."

Here's one from Ernest Adams at Gamasutra: "Core gamers are often rather contemptuous of casual gamers. Casual gamers aren't serious, they aren't dedicated, and they aren't capable of beating core gamers when they play against them. Core gamers like their games to be long and hard. There's a certain amount of testosterone involved in being a core gamer, which is why they like long, hard things."

Convinced yet?

From Bruce Baugh:

"What the people who coined “casual” as a pejorative term didn’t realize is that a fair number of those they targeted liked the idea of not being identified as failed hardcore players but as something else altogether. “Casual” came to be a term of self-approval for those wanting to distinguish gaming as an activity they may engage in a lot but that they can set aside when other things call from gaming as a lifestyle, a major source of self-identification."

Convinced of what ??

I'm already aware that there are "arrogant" people in every walk of life, including the gaming world.

They are just ignorant and I ignore them.

This pretty much distills my thoughts on the matter: "Casual” came to be a term of self-approval for those wanting to distinguish gaming as an activity they may engage in a lot but that they can set aside when other things call ..."

I don't think that the term "casual" really applies to a lot of the HOPA games. I think the word "casual" as it applies to games originated back before HOPA games were even being made, and it was more geared towards solitaire and mahjong and the like.

It's a good question, Jenny, and one which I am still thinking about since I read your post.

As someone who is in many gaming groups on FaceBook and Twitter and Steam, I believe 8dognights assessment is spot on as to what the opinions are of casual players and games. Putting down casual games and players is something that "real gamers" (as they like to think of themselves) do regularly. It must make them feel better about themselves. It is in line with the same arrogance that some who always boast they NEVER EVER look at a WT and of course beat the game in half the time as anyone else. I just laugh at them and move on...

Ana

The term "Casual" for me just denotes that a game is neither full blown Adventure OR Action.
And games IN this Casual category can be so varied in style and content I would be hard pressed to come up with a more definitive title.

But to infer that people who prefer one particular category are in any way "better" than people who might prefer another is absolute nonsense. And arrogance of the highest order.

I detest arrogance. And ignore arrogant people.

Ooh! Well said Mad!

Same here, Mad. I started with Adventure games (Myst, The Dig, Zork, etc.) and still like more "meat" in my games, so I think I tend to be hard on HOs, in general. I did try a couple, and found them way too simple and repetitive. When they began to mature and expand their scope of play, I began to play a few. But my early Adventure gaming experience is why I cherish the really good Casuals that have a solid story line, good characters, realistic dialogue, and sensible support scenes (for example, a game set in Antarctica should NOT have an HO scene where you look for bowling balls, sun umbrellas and badminton rackets).

As a matter of fact, I am replaying Shiver: Moonlit Grove right now, which is a great and is a very "Adventure" HO game. There are a few HO scenes, but they are a minor part of the game, and there are no silly Collectibles and never a pop-up to break your game wall.

.

Jenny - I like what Mad wrote here.

[quote=Mad]The term "Casual" for me just denotes that a game is neither full blown Adventure OR Action.
And games IN this Casual category can be so varied in style and content I would be hard pressed to come up with a more definitive title.

I agree that IHOG's are not casual in the sense you're saying (like Solitaire or Bejeweled, both of which I play at night when I'm not ready for bed but am not capable of thinking too much about puzzles or searching for stuff), but I don't consider them adventure games. They are just somewhere in between.

Interesting conversation. I am an Adventure gamer that started playing Casuals because I couldn’t find the type of 1st person puzzlers that I craved. It’s no secret that I play games for the puzzles, and it seems like when I joined BigFish 9 years ago, the games were tougher.
Anyhow, my definition for a casual is simple. If I can play it in fits and starts, jump right in, and not have to take notes to do a puzzle, then it is a casual. If I have to take notes to refer to, or draw a map, or keep track of where I have been, then it is an adventure. So far, I have found very few games like that with PC casuals at BigFish, though I have purchased quite a few games for my iPad at the app store that come close.
Having said that, I haven’t played an adventure since The Witness, which I am still working on.

I am the same way about the casual games: The peskier the mini-games, and the more they are like traditional Adventure games, the more I like them. Only about 5 per hundred that I have played "fit the bill." Still, over the years, I have played them anyway, just to fill in the corners. I accept their shortfalls because I have found no alternative.

What games from the iPad store have you tried? The only one I've played was The Room, which I loved. You can't pre-play a sample of the iPad games, so I rely on word of mouth to help me choose.