Adventure Games, Casual Games -- Some Thoughts

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....

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.

Have you played a certain text adventure of new called The Lost Pig? I found the amount of details and the level of interactivity in that game truly amazing and (what is equally important) it's truly done in a way that adds to the gameplay instead of confusing the player about what to do next.

The very old text adventures often bore me to be honest. They just feel too... stiff. I usually prefer new ones over them. Zorks are an exception. Possibly because I really like the world they are set in.

I haven't played a text adventure in years, though I've heard there are some good ones. I wasn't trying to promote IF, though, but rather point out that the genre actually took a step backwards from where it once was in terms of interactivity, and that we still haven't really recovered. I think setting sights on restoring that degree of personal involvement would make adventures far richer and more rewarding than they are now, without necessarily becoming too easy.

In general, then, adventure games should be more responsive to the gamer than they are now? And not necessarily by adding extra nonessential hotspots?

Sorry if I seem clueless as to how this might be implemented. Well, relatively clueless. I'm remembering the "touch everything to hear how it sounds" feature in Myst IV: Revelation. It made the world more responsive, but it seemed, um, more of a gimmick than anything else.

Your asking more questions isn't making my escape any easier, Becky.

In general, yes! Thing is, though, I'm trying to avoid being specific, because I don't think there has to be only one way to accomplish it, or that each way would suit each game.

More non-essential hotspots could be a great start. If you do something rewarding with them. If they feel like they were added just to give us something fun to try. But they could also be hindrances, if clicking on them is dull and disappointing and their existence is really just to obscure the items that are really relevant. Then they're only there as a frustation. So more is not necessarily better; instead I'd say it's more important to make better use of the ones available.

Gimmicks are only gimmicks if they aren't implemented properly. And even if they aren't, you still remember them. Plus, if no one tries them, no one will ever improve on them.

While neither of these things appeal to me, collectibles and achievements are also huge in other games (mainly other genres). Some adventures have begun using them (Emerald City Confidential, Strong Bad come to mind), so that's another avenue being explored, if only lightly.

Again, I don't mean to make is sound like no adventures do these things, or that all of them don't do it to some extent. I'd just like to see distribution a little more refined, and player reward built more into the actual gameplay than merely the big pats on the head for persevering through all the challenges.

Thanks Singer -- I liked the experiments with collectibles in Emerald City confidential and Strong Bad. I would like to see more of that in adventures.

I'll stop asking questions now. You always have interesting things to say, IMHO.

Twenty minutes? I never spend so little time on any game. If I have the day off from work I'll play a hog until I've finished it, then go onto the next one. As I said once before, I don't play casual games casually.

One thing that has caused me to play more casual or adventure lite games is the time factor. Although I love my adventure games and I love the ones with lots of any kind of puzzles, I think time is a factor for me. I do love the analogy of the book. But to take it a step further, I enjoy books too with shorter chapters that I can stop at and feel like I have a stopping point. With casual games or adventure lite, I can stop more easily, or feel I can accomplish something with a small increment of time. If I don't have alot of time, I know it is useless to play certain adventure games, because I will not have time to really think this through and accomplish anything because I don't have a large amount of time to set aside. With the casual type, I can solve a level in 20-30 minutes or less and feel like I ended a chapter in a book. I can go back and pick up the story quickly and progress quickly. But like many complain, the game ends far too quickly especially if you are used to adventure type games.

That being said, I still love the challenge and exploration in adventure games. The feeling I am visiting a place I could never see otherwise. The feeling of working on something for hours or even days or more and I worked it out and solved it. There is a definately a difference in casual and adventure and it takes some getting used to when coming from adventure and trying casual or vice versa. I see people complain that this casual game is too short, or this adventure is way to long just running around looking for stuff. I think it depends on which you started on---casual or adventure and whether you love more puzzle driven or story driven.

I think for me, because I now enjoy both, it depends on time and stress level. Some games are more calming and some are challenging, and I play as needed

Koalanut

I've been turning this over in my mind since we had the discussion, and have consulted a couple of GB's casual game experts and I'm curious as to what people think of the following:

1. Hidden Object gameplay is so associated with casual games, that if a game contains it, the game is automatically casual -- even if a game exists that, if you eliminated the HO challenges, you'd essentially have an adventure game -- cough cough, Return to Ravenhearst. It's possible in the future for a game to have Hiddden Object gameplay that's such a minor part of the game that the game isn't casual -- but at the moment, Hidden Object screens are in the game, it's going to be regarded as a casual game.

2. Casual games rarely have elaborate, large graphical environments (although this trend may be changing too, especially with the new IHOGS (Interactive Hidden Object Games). If you can walk around in a location, see what's behind you and to the side of you, click on hotspots that aren't necessary for the gameplay, you probably aren't playing a casual game. If, after you leave a location, you can walk around it in your head, you've probably played an adventure game.

3. Casual games are structured to be played in short bursts, so you won't find a lot of interwoven complexities. The story, for instance, will come in brief chunks, and often it's separated from the gameplay, instead of interwoven throughout it. Also, you won't find puzzles that require multiple steps performed in disparate locations. You also won't find long, elaborate dialog trees. Adventures seek to immerse the gamer intensely for long stretches of time -- casual games can do that too, but that isn't necessarily their aim.

4. A casual game is different than an episodic game, which will have the characteristics of (for instance) an adventure game, but presented in chapters that finish with a story arc that is part of a whole. One way to think of it may be that an adventure game is like a novel, an episodic "season" is like the chapters in a novel, and a casual game is like a short story.

5. Casual games aim to give "rewards" frequently. They don't want the gamer baffled or stuck, particularly not at first. Adventure games want gamers to slow down, take their time, see how everything relates to the story or the game environment -- even become frustrated at times.

My thinking is along the lines that casual games are slowly getting more adventuresome and the line between the two is getting fuzzier. One example is a Match-3 game like Cindy's Travels: Flooded Kingdom that actually told a story and was quite charming, I thought, and I dislike regular Match-3 games. Everybody already knows that IHOGs are taking over the regular HOGs. I think maybe Mortimer Becket started the trend and MCF: Return to Ravenhearst gave it a big boost!
I don't quite know how to say this, but it seems to me the big difference between casual and adventure is the format, like the basic ground rules. Casual has a formal structure that is always the same, while adventure is more open and character driven. I know what the difference is for me, but everyone else has to decide for themselves. Of course!

While my game library is small and my experience limited, my sense is that HerInteractive has been going this route for at least a couple of years... and if I'm understanding the description of 'Casual' correctly, it seems like the Nancy Drew series began morphing from an AG with puzzles to a puzzle game wrapped with a thin veneer of adventure... sort of 'leading the charge' into a new era of AG'ing.

The first words that came to mind were: "Dumbing down". Reminds me of TV: 'Reality' programming has been --more & more-- insinuating itself into TV dramas, sitcoms, etc.

Casual puzzles are fun and adventure games are fun, but one shouldn't try to be the other. Having a small amount of one in the other is fine, however.

Wow, Becky! I missed this topic the first time around, but you have certainly opened up an intriguing dialog. I have enjoyed reading the posts in answer to your query. I love the analogies between novel and short story, crossword puzzles, etc.

In reading your most recent post, I would agree with all the conclusions you have reached.

As someone who grew up enjoying puzzles...crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, etc...my initial step into computer adventure games was after running out of pure puzzle games (Pandora's Box, Contraptions, for example). I stepped into The Riddle of the Sphinx...and found an entirely new challenge...wrapped in an "out of this world" experience. In essence, it added a new dimension to the puzzle experience.

My success with this new type of puzzle format, was limited. Unlike a crossword puzzle, where one could utilize reference materials to find a solution, the adventure had no such reference book to assist. Frustration, as Singer pointed out, did set in. The discovery of Gameboomers reference library of walkthroughs allowed me to not have to abandon adventure games...and go back to my 2-dimensional puzzle world.

I did seek out games that I might find easier...Nancy Drew ("For girls 10 and up") and found more immediate gratification and less frustration..due to the hint system (phone a friend)...and thus the ability to complete these games without a walkthrough

I have now played a number of adventure games and since a couple of years ago have now added casual games, despite my ever increasing "to be played" pile of adventure games. The casual games (mostly HOGs) drew me in because of puzzles, so I think your initial premise that puzzle lovers would be more readily drawn to this genre is correct. I think time...or lack thereof...is the biggest reason in my case.

One has to be committed to play an adventure game. You are contracting to be engaged...to step into this new dimension...and explore, interact, interpret, engage in dialogues, to solve intricate puzzles in many cases...in order to come out on the other side with the story resolved.

No such commitment is needed in a casual game. With rare exceptions (Ravenhearst being one), casual games don't offer that added dimension. They very much feel two dimensional and flat. They do offer, however, appeal to puzzle lovers and do provide an instant puzzle "fix" when needed. Once one had tasted a good adventure game, however, the overall experience is not as satisfying.

So I would also add the level of commitment and dimensionality in the comparison between the two genres. Despite the occasional dalliance by some developers to merge elements of the two, I agree with Carrie because one simply cannot be the other.

I don't think it's a question of it being easier as much as being as enjoyable. I have recently (in the last year) become a fan of the casual adventure (I love Ravenhearst) and to me the distinction is still clear between the two and one does not replace the other by any stretch of the imagination.

Despite similar elements they are still two distinct types of formats for gaming. They just both happen to have puzzles in them, sometimes the same puzzles. Casual adventure games focus on the hidden object aspect while standard adventures focus on story and character and environment.

So in essence the transition I don't think is focused on the puzzle themselves, but the context and gameplay in which those puzzles are presented.

A puzzle is a puzzle no matter what. A sliding block puzzle is a sliding block puzzle in an HO game or a standard adventure.

An adventure game isn't an HO game and an HO game isn't an adventure because the core gameplay is vastly different between the two.

I don't think one is in any danger of replacing the other anytime soon.