Trying to make your game accessible to everyone doesn't mean it has to be bland. I think what it means is coming to terms with the idea that gamers will play your game differently, and you need to let them do that -- as in let them bypass parts that don't appeal to them.

Gamers who love dialogs and voiceovers won't click through the dialogs, but gamers who don't love dialogs and voiceovers will click through the dialogs, and they'll like the game better for it. Gamers who hate pixel hunting will use the "locate hotspots" feature -- gamers who enjoy searching the screen, won't need to use it.

Gamers who don't want to do the 20-step puzzle will bypass it to get to the story; gamers who like a challenge engage the 20-step puzzle.

Giving options won't create blandness. Of course, the developers then have to listen to complaints that the game is too short, but I assume they are getting used to that now.

Aren't they?

"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. "

In relation to casual games or adventures ??

[I certainly haven't encountered enough of that in adventures to say it was becoming a "trend". And I sincerely hope it never does !! ]

That applies to casual games, Mad.

Since my mother has just begun her adventure into Casual gaming, I can say, that the automatic saving is GOOD for her.
She has absolutely NO idea how to do these things

Probably becuase her english is very poor and going through too many screens to get to the Save screen makes her confused.

The good thing though is, that she learns english faster this way - she sits with her little english-danish dictionary and look up every word, she doesn't recognize

Thanks for an interesting topic Becky & the very good summarisation of the difference(s)between Adventures & Casual Games.

"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?"

When you say 'transition' though, do you mean gradually playing less Adventures in favour of Casual games?

Although I have liked some well-integrated 'stand alone' puzzles in Adventures & have enjoyed some puzzle-focused games I prefer games with a bias towards inventory type puzzles, exploration & significant character interaction. I've played one Casual game (Adventure Lite?) which in theory offers all the elements I like on a simpler basis but I haven't played another since. The reason being is that I play Casual games as an alternative to Adventures when either I don't have time to get involved in one or I not in the mood to concentrate on so I'd rather play something 'non-adventure', but challenging all the same! Casual games, for me, would never win out over Adventures but do add to my gameplaying experience!

I think it's wondeful that there is such a large variety of very good Casual games available. It does seems that there are quite a few players now favoring them over Adventures but hopefully new gamers who enjoy Adventure-Lites might be tempted to move on to more complex Adventures.

One issue I do have is the lack of classification on boxed versions of some Casual Games to distinguish them from an Adventure Game.

Hi chrissie -- by "transition" I mean trying out casual games, not necessarily playing them instead of adventures.

"That applies to casual games, Mad. "

What a relief then !!

Thank you, Becky

Thanks for explaining Becky! My preference for less puzzle focused Adventure games hasn't stopped me from trying & continuing to buy some Casual games. But although, when in the mood, I enjoy the puzzle elements in them I possibly play less than a gamer who prefers a game more puzzle orientated?

Agreed. Far too many of them have words like 'adventure' 'mystery' and 'detective' on them or in their title and only when you read the text on the back of the back very thoroughly you discover that it's a HOG and not an adventure. When I bought my laptop there were some demo's of casual games on it (both HOG and bejeweled-type games) but I don't enjoy them much. I don't claim to have 'absolute memory' or anything but after having seen the same location two or three times I already know where all the grapes and spanners and rabbits are so the challenge is gone.

I've been thinking about this more and have another question -- are puzzle games and electronic board games a subset of casual games? Or are there puzzle games that wouldn't be considered casual games? Is Pandora's Box, for instance, a casual game?

Three cheers for your mother, misslilo; I admire the fact that she is willing to do this.

One of the best things I have read that discusses the explosion of popularity in casual games was written by Jack Allin, editor of AdventureGamers, and if it is all right, I will quote what he had to say here:

"For those who haven’t played them, hidden object games are basically “adventure lite” experiences. They’ve got a story framework, they’ve got puzzles, they’ve got pretty pictures. They rarely give you any freedom or exploration, but instead offer the one thing that adventures so desperately lack: a constant sense of challenge and fulfillment. Ten minutes of an adventure means practically nothing. Ten minutes of seek-and-find games means twenty small victories. Sure they’re largely ongoing “pixel hunts”, but it’s this continual feedback loop that makes the casual games so much more appealing than adventures for many people.

And guess what? They’re cheap. The adventure genre was basically kept afloat by DreamCatcher in the last dark period by offering adventures at “budget” prices. And budget games always do well, almost regardless of quality. Now most adventures have edged back up into regular game price ranges, and suddenly a purchase is not so automatic. The economy’s in the tank, and everyone’s looking for value, and you can’t afford to be wrong with that extra $10-20 dollars. The new “budget” value, then, is casual games. More rewarding AND cheaper begins to look better and better."

I think Jack made some excellent points. And what he says here doesn't just apply to hidden object games either; it applies equally to other genres of casual games as well: time management games, match-3, and so forth.

You can read Jack's full blog discussing casual games and their potential effect on adventure games at Adventure Gamers here.

I would consider Pandora's Box, Jewels games, Peter's Jigsaws, Magnetic, Xiama and games like them to be casual games. A casual game to me means something that can be played whenever you have a few spare minutes to work out a puzzle. You can leave the game for months, and them come back to pick up where you left off, without having to remember dialogue, cutscenes, or story. I can't do that with an Adventure. I have notes to read through to follow where I am in the story or environment. This is how I distinguish a puzzle heavy adventure(like Rhem) from just doing puzzles. A game like Rhem has to have continuity of play, so you can get the big picture.

If I did that with a casual game, I'd probably not even remember about the existence of this particular game anymore. Unless it was a very unique casual game.

I can't disagree with what you have said Marian, but personally I would rather pay the equivalent of $10-20 dollars extra for one Adventure Game rather than buy 3 - 4 Casual games. I do buy Casual games as well but for me they don't offer the same immersion & depth that a full Adventure game does although there's no denying that Casual games can give you more 'satisfaction' within minutes. It does depend on what you want from games and/or what you want at the time.

I'm curious to know if Casual games were only available at the same prices as full new Adventures, how well they would do? It would be interesting to know also, from a site like BigFish, the proportion of Adventure purchases compared to Casual bearing in mind that they have a much larger selection of Casual games?

This has been an interesting topic . I posted earlier on this thread. But I thought I would explain more on why I like both casual and adventure. I always refer to my book reading to my game playing. I may read a short story book or a magazine one day, when I don't have that much time to get into a deep in depth novel. But I still enjoyed the short story, it is interesting and satisfying, and the magazine I may pick it up and look through it again one day. That is the way a casual game is to me.
But with an adventure game it is like a great mystery novel that you can't put down it draws you in from the beginning, it intrigues you , you have to keep turning the page to see what happens next. You become a part of that world, it is like a good book that comes alive on the screen and you are living in it. When I am at work I think about the game, the story, and I can hardly wait to get home to continue it. That is the feeling I get from adventure games . I don't get that same feeling from casual games. My passion for them isn't as strong. But I do like them. I also agree with Chrissie, I know adventure games cost more then casual but if I had to choose between few casual games or buy a new adventure game for the same price I would buy the adventure game. That is just my cup of tea or my flavor of ice-cream or whatever way you say it, my opinion.

An intriguing analogy, Trinny3!

This has been a really interesting discussion for me.
Thanks!

So it seems people would buy increasingly more casual games than advenures because these are cheaper, easier and provide instant victory. It would be really interesting to know the proportions Chrissie mentioned…

But my question is:
What do you think, if an adventure game had a „lite” casual version (not a demo, but maybe a HOG with some puzzles and an easy storyline) with clear reference to this being a different game, would this make casual gamers more interested in the large adventure game itself? Or the contrary: would it prevent people from buying the adventure because they’d feel they’ve already played that game?

"So it seems people would buy increasingly more casual games than advenures because these are cheaper, easier and provide instant victory."

Whilst some people might do that, many people certainly won't !!

So to make a sweeping statement like that is rather innacurate, I feel.

However, I do agree that this has been an interesting point to discuss

That's an interesting question Pilaus. I think one of the problems of that is that you would already know the 'plot'. But despite that I would consider buying a full adventure version of a Casual Game if the puzzles were included minimally and there was the inclusion of more conventional types to integrate well into the story. This would have to have more depth, there would need to be a few more locations & perhaps a 'twist in the tale' to set it apart from it's 'Liter' version!

To an extent, yes. I'd be careful with the "instant victory" point, though, because that's where you could go seriously wrong. That suggests that simply making games brain-dead easy is the way to go. But what's important is not "victory" but a sense of progress and positive reinforcement. Think of it like a crossword puzzle. They usually aren't easy to actually complete. But each correct answer gives you that little momentary thrill of success, and motivates you forward. It's that process that I think casual games do much better than adventures.

Too many adventure developers have settled into a puzzles = gameplay mindset. Puzzles are an important part, for sure, but an imbalance makes it a very gruelling experience to play. Adding minigames has been one way to address this (not saying it's the best, just another current trend). HOG-style activities are an extreme extension of that approach. But I don't think adventures need to go that far to tap into some of what's missing. There are other ways to better reward players to keep us going. Exploring worlds and interacting with others should be fulfilling in its own right, not just the means to a puzzle end it often is now. Experimenting should be encouraged, not discouraged. How often do we hear a variation of "no" in an adventure? Even if there's only one solution, there are ways of making players feel good about the effort without simply turning them away all the time.

Okay, so now I'm rambling, but my point is, I think there's a right lesson and wrong lesson for adventure devs to take from casual games. The right lesson, in my mind, is to make games that are more rewarding in little (crossword-like) ways within the context of the genre's own gameplay, rather than simply making all the challenges really easy or adopting a minigame-style format.

Hi Singer -- I've been thinking about what you said, and trying to come up with specific examples. For me personally, an area opening up to explore is rewarding intrinsically -- but I'm not sure how you would structure this to happen more often, short of making a game more linear, with more barriers to exploration. (Does this make sense?)

I find that dialog is intrinsically rewarding if it reveals part of a mystery or if it makes me laugh or if it reveals something important about a character. One example of more frequent dialog that springs to mind is Keepsake -- where some of the dialogs seemed to be triggered simply by the passage of time, not by having to solve a puzzle or find an inventory item or otherwise progressing. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I actually liked this aspect of Keepsake, though I've seen others complain that it was disorienting to suddenly hear dialogs at various points without anything in particular triggering them.

Just curious -- do you think that frequent short cut scenes would be rewarding?

Hi, Becky. Traditional things like cutscenes and opening up new areas are indeed quite rewarding, but these occur at a higher level than I'm thinking of. I mean, you need to solve an entire puzzle or multi-puzzle sequence to achieve it, and that can easily take an hour or more (and indefinitely if you get stuck). That's already longer than some people's attention spans (not that I'm speaking from experience or anything. ) So I'm talking about rewards on a more "micro" scale. Adventures have some of that, too: finding items for your inventory, fiddling around with gadgets, talking to NPCs, etc. I just rarely find much above and beyond the bare minimum in many games today.

The what's and the how's may end up being fairly game-specific, but there are some examples already. Like using ghost-hunting equipment in Jonathan Boakes' games. Or how about Return to Mysterious Island's inventory formula system? Or even the health bar, which serves as little mini-incentive along the way. Making that incrementally fill up was always cause for a little fist pump of celebration. Point systems offer a similar benefit, although I can't remember the last one that served a really tangible benefit along those lines. Still, the possibility is definitely there.

More games are making use of "thoughts" as inventory, which adds a new layer of potential, and Mata Hari experiments with a three-tiered inventory that goes one step beyond that. Those provide a more hands-on approach than the rather passive dialogue trees we usually get, so ideas like that are encouraging. I don't recall Keepsake's dialogue, but that does sound like a nice touch to add welcome flavour. But even having more optional dialogue alone is a possible reward, and definitely having more tailored responses to your actions than the same three canned versions of "no way, Jose" that we get now. Text adventures of old had it all over today's graphic adventures in terms of player interaction.

I know some ideas come down to budget limitations, and that's always the big hurdle. But not necessarily insurmountable. Legend of Cystal Valley has as many as three different observation comments for non-essential items. Three! That's going above and beyond. Les Miserables (the game) lets you click on random characters just for some socio-political colour that has nothing to do with the main plot. Granted, those are indies that can cut corners more commercial games can't, but the point remains.

So those are examples (but only examples) of the kinds of creative thinking that can make games more fulfilling on that micro-level. It's funny, I was talking to Aaron Conners (Tex Murphy/3 Cards to Midnight developer) about genre definitions, and he noted that "frustration" seems to be an intrinsic element of adventure games. He meant it in a totally neutral way (in the sense of deliberately imposing obstacles to prevent progress), and I couldn't disagree with him, at least the way games are designed now. But you can see where that isn't necessarily a major selling point: "Play adventure games! They'll frustrate you!!" So I dunno. I think there's a happy medium out there, where "challenge" doesn't have to mean frustration, where it doesn't seem like you're practically fighting against the game every step of the way, just for the few large but rare scaps thrown your way to acknowledge your effort.

Whoops, this answer seems to be getting huge, so I'll stop. (See, this is why I was avoiding this thread for so long. )

Having a lot to say doesn't mean you should avoid a thread. I'm thinking more about this -- it's intriguing.

I agree that the frustration level in adventures is sometimes too high. But that balance -- where you're challenged and not overly frustrated -- is going to be different for each individual. That's why I like the ability to choose a difficulty level at the beginning of a game, or to use a hint occasionally when I find I'm in over my head.

I know some gamers like point systems. I tend to ignore them.

I do like it very much when a multi-stepped puzzle lets me know I'm partway there, or that I have the right idea. Interim feedback is good.

EDIT: A feature I liked that gave feedback -- the "good versus evil" monitors in The Secrets of Da Vinci: The Forbidden Manuscript. It was interesting to see choices reflected that way as the game progressed.

No, my inability to shut up was the reason to avoid starting.



Difficulty levels would be great, but I wasn't actually talking about affecting the difficulty at all. By balancing challenge and frustration, I'm talking about encouraging the player in other ways to minimize the frustration felt by being confronted by one obstacle after another. If you're stuck on a puzzle, but it's just so darn fun exploring every nook and cranny because the game rewards you for it, that's okay! Or if the game promotes creative experimentation, failing doesn't feel frustrating anymore. The old Zorks and such games even made it fun to die and painless to recover. That sure isn't true anymore. So you still need to solve the same puzzles, but you're enjoying the process. But if all you're left with are a handful of hotspots, a few generic comments and the same old options, then it just becomes work.