"Beyond that, my analysis is: limited but simple mechanics that require a great deal to master seem to be the key to making casual games for the hardcore."
This is the question posed by James Portnow in his article on casual games. Having proclaimed myself several times to be a gamer being born of the arcades, one can imagine I squee'd with schoolgirl like joy when I found arcade games the focus of one of our class readings, found here: http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/04/opinion_redefining_casual_for.php
Having spent at some two or three years worth of weekends in an arcade playing DDR, I can tell you that this idea of limited but simple mechanics is tantamount to this idea. in Dance Dance Revolution, there are four buttons. Just four. The music plays, you hit the arrow when it reaches a point on screen to the music, and repeat. Simple. Addictive. Every weekend I saw the same group of people play it, with new people always trying it just because the machine, however intimidating it was, was intriguing. The game was casual because it was simple, and you could play one game and walk away. Unless you were addicted.
The same goes for light-gun games, or racing games. There's not so much a large number of buttons to learn. Pull a trigger, push an accelerator, turn a wheel, it's all obvious and intuitive.
However, I have one more idea that could be put into a game for it to truly give a hardcore as well as casual appeal, and that's a hidden depth that can lead to competitive or least high-scoring play. DDR has (as well as other rhythm games), along with those who come in and play a couple games a month because they happen to be near a machine, a very large competitive scene, where people try to obtain the highest scores possible and best their opponents. There is a wealth of lingo, slang, and techniques utilized by the elite of the community, as any other competitive game does. From personal experience I can say this community can be as difficult to penetrate as other competitive gaming communities, if not more difficult (no one wants to help someone else be a potential attention-stealer, to this I can attest).
When I further consider it, this might just be part of Portnow's point that these games need replayability to appeal to a hardcore gamer. A competitive aspect might be just one way to obtain that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's a good write up and an interesting take on the situation compared to most blogs that were written about the definition of casual vs hardcore. You bring a different sense to the argument with your own experiences with DDR.
ReplyDeleteI just think Portnow was way off with his definition of the casual game. That was my biggest beef with his argument.