The difference between adventure games and casual games is becoming more of an issue as each day goes by.

Anyway, below are some ideas that I'm hoping will lead to a discussion -- I'm very curious as to what others think.


Casual Game – Casual games are from no particular genre. They can be casual adventure, casual strategy, casual arcade, etc. What’s different about them is that they are structured to be played in short gulps. You should be able to get satisfaction within 20 minutes, then return the next day for 20 minutes more. The interface must be easy-to-learn. Early levels will have very easy puzzles and give frequent rewards. Casual games are normally purchased via download, contain brief tutorials and often allow you to play a demo for a specific time before purchasing the game.

Adventure Game – an interactive story, set within a fully-realized, explorable world, in which you interact with individual animated characters and solve challenges using (mostly) your wits. Part of what distinguishes them from casual games is that they are large – the demos themselves are so large that casual game portals (like BigFish) will post a trailer instead of a demo.

Episodic Game – a game that lasts 2-4 hours (more if you’re slow) and is part of a series with an overarching plot that connects the short games together. Tends to be in the adventure genre (so far), perhaps because the elements of story and compelling characters that can be tied together through various episodes becomes easiest to work out in an adventure game.

How a casual adventure differs from a “traditional” adventure

A casual adventure (or "adventure lite") might have a bite-sized story (to go with each level), one or two screens per level (you don’t know what’s behind you and you aren’t really immersed in the environment), brief dialogs (probably no dialog choices) and possibly no character animation. The puzzles will all be completed within each individual level.

There are certain gameplay mechanisms that are associated with casual games – Hidden Object Games (HOGs), Match 3 and Platformer, for instance.

Casual gamers who play a “traditional” adventure game for the first time may be surprised to find that adventure games are more difficult, more complex, longer in length (sometimes a lot longer), and there’s no chance to play a demo to try the game out at the game portal (like BigFish).

Adventure gamers who play a casual adventure (or adventure lite) game for the first time may be surprised to find that casual games are easier (at least early on in the game), graphics have a more simplistic “feel” or environments are smaller, character interaction is brief, and stories aren’t as deep.

My speculation: would puzzle-focused adventure gamers find the transition to casual games easier than adventure gamers who are particularly fond of exploration and significant character interaction?

Thanks, Becky.

"My speculation: would puzzle-focused adventure gamers find the transition to casual games easier than adventure gamers who are particularly fond of exploration and significant character interaction? "

I've only played a few games that were classed as "casual" .... by Gameboomers .... which is the only place I've ever looked for any anyway, so I'm no expert to offer an opinion

But one I DID like was "The Legend of the Crystal Valley" and that, probably, because it played very much like an Adventure !!

The others I've tried turned out to be hidden object stuff - and I certainly don't find those "all consuming" experiences

On the whole then I would say that puzzle-focused adventure gamers would find the transition to casual games easier than adventure gamers who are particularly fond of exploration and significant character interaction.

Cheers.

Mad

Hi Becky, it really depends on my mood: I'll always choose an adventure when my concentration's good, as they're a bit more 'meaty' and thought-provoking and the thrill of exploration's rising in me.

Casual games I save for the days when I just want to play. Thanks for asking!

Becky that is an excellent description of the difference between a Casual Game, Episodic Game and Adventure game. For me it wasn't a difficult transition from Adventure to Casual and Episodic Games. I knew what to expect from observing the posts on the Casual Game Forum. I use the Casual and Episodic Games as fillers between pure Adventure Games. They are a lot of fun and can be very challenging.

Becky, a very fine analysis for a topic I've thought frequently about lately. I think there is a real distinction and do have some concerns about the rising popularity of casual games possibly "watering down" the nature and quality of adventure games in terms of publishers planning for the future. Let me cite a few examples.

Except for the first Ravenhearst, I hadn't done much at all with casual titles until I received a Big Fish gift card from one of my sons for Christmas. Delightedly, I found and enjoyed such titles as Saqqarah, Azada 2, Nancy Drew: Lights, Ravenhearst 2 and, most interesting of all, Dr. Lynch: Grave Secrets, a HOG with an underlying story apparently authored by Jane Jensen. This, and the Womens' Murder Club games seem to be coming close to classic adventure offerings. Indeed, a Gamezebo reviewer describes Dr. Lynch as a "classic whodunit mystery," giving it a 90% rating. Conversely, another Gamezebo reviewer gives one of the best adventures (IMHO) of the last 2 years, the re-mastered Holmes: Awakened, only a 50% rating, describing the plot as "weird and ridiculous." Reader reviews from that site seem to agree.

Another example of concern is the "watering down" of one of my favorite series - the original 3 DreamCatcher Agatha Christie games. With numbers 4 and 5, Death On The Nile and Peril At End House we find interesting, but simplistic, Hidden Object Games.

Well, I do go on - sorry - but you get my point, I hope. I think the two genres, Casual (specifically, HOGs) and Adventure, are really "apples and oranges," at least at this point in time. Although we do find a kind of puzzle approach in HOGs, it doesn't begin to match the depth and quality of puzzling in the RHEM series, for example. And, even more importantly for me, conversational and character development and interaction is never really fleshed out in Casual Adventures. In that respect, they are quite hollow - fun, but superficial. Think of the mystery and depth of OutCry or Darkness Within. We don't want to have to settle for Dream Chronicles or Lost Cases of Sherlock Holmes, as fun as they might be as a diversion from true Adventure games.

I do hope that Jane Jensen, and other authors and developers, will continue to lend their skills to the Casual market, but also, as importantly, not forget Adventure gamers, the community that gave them their start and continues to be hungry for fine, truly Adventure games.

As an original Adventure gamer recently converted to be a relentless die hard casual gamer it is an interesting discussion.

I think your descriptions comparing are pretty spot on.

Your speculation "My speculation: would puzzle-focused adventure gamers find the transition to casual games easier than adventure gamers who are particularly fond of exploration and significant character interaction? "

As I was an adventure gamer who was fond of the stories behind the game, besides Nancy Drew games only really liked 3rd person adventures previously. I kind of avoided puzzle type games that were not inventory based puzzles as I did not think I was any good at them, and if I struck one normally looked up a walkthrough.
Puzzles feature so much in casual games I am now actually getting very good at them.

It is really strange how much I took to the casual game arena.

I purchased Sherlock Holmes- The Awakened - after my casual game preference set in - and I did not like this game.
I found it frustrating wandering around for hours at times looking for stuff or someone to talk to, whereas I expected that with my Adventure games previously.

I think I get more immediate satisfaction from casual games that have elements of what I like about adventure games. Instead of pixel hunting for an hour, I can get a hint to find what I am looking for- that is also a plus LOL

I'm another die hard PC Adventure fan. I've never played any other genres, but recently have dabbled with casual games (only Hogs and IHogs). Here's my take:
I love the exploration and the puzzle aspect of Adventures. I'm not keen on lots of character interaction, or inventory puzzles. A plot is not essential, as long as there is a quest or backstory to discover. My favorite games are the Rhem/Myst-like games. Unfortunately, they are not popular right now, and I was craving puzzle games. So I tried out the casual games (Azada, Ravenhurst, etc.) For puzzles, they are ok, though I find most of them too easy. They have virtually no exploration, which I miss terribly. I have no interest in the 'story' aspect in casual games, and often skip through the dialogue or character interaction.
So, in short, being a puzzle-centric adventure gamer, casual games are not the solution, at least not yet. Not until they offer more challenging puzzles, for me anyhow.
I should add that playing against a timer is not my idea of making something more challenging.

Thanks Becky good topic ,

I agree with BellaRosa . I don't want to see the lack in developers in making the games that we as adventure lovers love to play . I will choose an adventure game over a casual always. I only play casual when I have no new adventure to play. I prefer a casual that has a story along with it, when I do have to play one. Adventures are what they say adventure, that's what they do, they take you on an exciting adventure. Casual doesn't do that, it doesn't give me that good feeling that an adventure does . They are OK for a little entertainment once in awhile, which I like. But developers please keep making those good meaty adventure games that we all love passionately .

I enjoy solving puzzles, that's why I visit the garden often. I also enjoy a good story, that's why I watch movies and sometimes even read a book.
But in an adventuregame I'm usually much more captured by the story because the puzzles force me to participate and care.
At the same time, in an adventuregame the puzzles are more fun to solve than when they're from a book, because the story and context makes them meaningful.
A game without puzzles therefore isn't for me, so I'm definitely a puzzle-focused adventure gamer.

For me, the answer would be 'no'. Although some puzzle-heavy adventures are too difficult for me (Schizm, Riven) I'm still intrigued by their complexity. I see those games and casual games as complete opposites.
On the other hand, games that focus on story and inventory management have a much more casual feel. Often the developers even purposely avoid difficult tasks because they feel it would interrupt the flow of the story.
I imagine it's a more natural move to casual games for someone who enjoyed Syberia (OK, so that's not me), than for a Riven lover.

Fortunately there are still 800 AG's that I know of that I haven't played, so no need for me to worry.

I may be "puzzle-focused," but in my favorite adventure games I enjoy the exploration at least as much the puzzles. Uru would be an example -- I liked it for the exploration more than for the puzzles. And many of the puzzles in games like Myst/Riven/Schizm/RHEM simply wouldn't fit in a casual game because they are dependent on having an environment to manipulate. As has been pointed out, the puzzles (mini-games) in hidden object casual games are usually "too easy" even if the hidden object part is difficult (due to the objects being small or fuzzy or the screen being too dark).

So I consider casual games to be a supplement rather than a replacement, and there isn't really a "transition" any more than playing an occasional action/adventure (with cheats) would be a "transition."

Am I a puzzle-focused gamer? Certainly puzzles are very important to me, but a good storyline is similarly important. Regardless, I wouldn't really look for good puzzles in casual games. If I want to play a puzzle game I turn to something like World of Goo, Braid, or older games like Lost Vikings, Fool's Errand.

I'm quite happy about the success of casual games since without the genre I think games like Casebook or 3CM wouldn't get created at all in any form. However, I don't think very highly of them in terms of something to play. They're clearly made for people who find traditional games too hard and focus-demanding and for those who just want to give their mind a rest. I don't see much appeal in casual gaming beyond that.

Braid won the casual game of the year: Braid

And Goo is definitely a casual game as well. I have both at home, and they are great!

Ana

Really? They're complex and difficult and they reinvent their rules with each challenge. I doubt they're for the same audience as hidden object games.

I personally do not think degree of difficulty is a measure.

Games like So Blonde, Lost Crown etc are very simple adventure games, simpler than many casual games I have playd so I am not sure that putting a difficulty level defines casual vs adventure.

I was actually thinking of So Blonde playing Wandering Willows. Same concept lost person on island running around doing tasks requested by the folks encountered and vsiting new areas - same type of thing.

So Blondes graphics and sound are better quality- so that is taken into account classifying the game.

Degree of difficulty with games would lead to a division amongst adventure games in themselves.

I've yet to play something that is both difficult and is obviously a casual game.

How many casual games have you played fully Ascovel and which ones?
I used to be exactly like you and wondered what people saw in these casual games. Sounded silly and easy. Found out not quite so and more to them when you find the right ones for you,

Anyway to the discussion on how to rate an adventure vs casual- I might find some adventure games easy so therefore are they casual to me? Art of Murder is another simple game- all the Nancy games? I already mentioned a couple of other easy ones so should these games also be put in the casual category because of their ease to play?

I find it rather entertaining to listen to those that do not play casual games, judge them for what they are or aren't in a negative way. It is like someone telling a FPS player that all he does is run around and shoot. It may look like it if you are watching, but try playing it and seeing how hard it really is. There is a skill to all games, all genres and if you don't play them all, you really can't say what is easy or not. A HOG game may be a favorite for many of us, but it in no way shapes what all casual games are.

I think it is hard to judge if you do not play many casual games. I think 3 cards to Midnight is a good example and probably one of the games that sparked the discussion.

If anyone wants to say it is easy, please go play on either medium or hard level and come back and tell us you beat the game without any hints or skips. repeating a scene or consulting a walkthrough.

I very much doubt anyone could play this game on medium or harder without a hint (and the whole game- not just the demo).

Anyway please do not infer that casual gamers are brainless twerps.

There are great variations in Casual games that it is difficult to categorize them.

As for the Hidden object games which some gamers think are the sole Casual games genre:
- the hidden object can be simply that - look and find but in between are puzzles that are similar to those interspered in adventure games. They need not be related to the storyline. In later HOGs, the storyline is more enhanced and the minigames are part of the story (like Cate 2...).
- other variations in hidden object are more complicated: find the object and use it on another, description alone to find them, riddles to hunt for them. So more brainwork are used.

All in all they are fun and not necessarily easy.

As for adventure games - there are easy ones and some difficult ones too. It depends on the gamers; some are mathematically inclined, have fine ear for sound puzzles, loves sliders...

Gamers are all different. Games are all different. We welcome the difference. Please.

It's the differences that makes things interesting! So yes, I welcome them.
I am guilty of putting down the FPS games, not because I think they are easy, but because they bore me. I did try some of the very early ones that my husband was playing on his computer, so I do have a slight idea of what they are like.
I wonder, would a FPS gamer like the casual Diner Dash type of game since they are sort of an arcade-style of playing, rushing around doing stuff? You know, like rushing around shooting monsters or whatever. Action can be addictive, I reckon.

Yes. Now that would be difficult.

On the other hand, I could quite easily complete this way all the HOG parts in the game. And as an additional challenge I would play even without ever reading the keywords - someone could stick a piece of tape on my screen over them.

Just give me back my unlimited repeats in exchange for that.

OK. Seriously now, I take back what I said about casual games being easy. It wasn't exactly what I wanted to say anyway. I meant rather that they are easy to play in terms of the controls and based on mechanics the player is assumed to already know. Also, they tend to be schematic.



If that was about me, I don't infer anything like that. Firstly, I don't consider gaming prowess as a brainpower measure. Secondly, I think any kind of person may get into casual games. It's a matter of what are you looking for. However, please don't tell me that designers of popular casual games don't target complete gaming beginners as a huge PART of their audience. Also players who don't have time to fully focus on playing a game.

I've watched a game developer say that a lot of people who bought his game through Big Fish had problems discovering that you can use the second button of their mouse to play, and another one decided to leave out a screen for saving games as it is often deemed confusing. These are the kinds of things that designers have to consider to succeed on the casual market.

And despite all that, I'm happy about the popularity of casual games for several reasons. I just don't enjoy playing the majority of them myself. Well, some I do enjoy, but only for the aspects that remind me of traditional games.

Developers in the adventure genre are also figuring out how to make their games accessible to gamers with a wide range of experience. It's possible that casual gamers have a wider range (even more beginners) than other genres. But still, it's something everyone who develops games has to face.

Also, I think more developers are coming to terms with wanting the gamer to actually finish their games.

I think we're going to see more hint features and more selection of various difficulty levels in adventure games too. Well, I hope we are.

Not providing a save game function because they don't think the gamers will understand it? Are they serious???

True. But trying too hard to make games for everyone can result in making them bland or satisfying none.



They included automatic save game feature with one slot, but no manual game saving feature. Ideally both features should be in, but the trend is to limit the options to bare minimum.

Hi, Becky.....Good topic

I never played Casual games...Until ,Ana... Introduce me to the casual forum ...Thank You "Ana"

I always played True blue adventure games...BUT ! I did find that when I had problems & couldn't really get into a full adventure...I went to casual....I really fell inlove with Return to Ravenhurst...

I like the fact that you can search for things in "Hogs" & then leave ....Where as an Adventure you have to really think about what your doing...

Casual games are good for a fast pace "Fix" if your bored....