Casual games. What are they?
Let's figure out here what kind of casual games we talk about very often and mostly with disdain. Let's talk about their future, about their popularity.To begin with, I suggest reading the article from Wikipedia. This is not the last resort, but it provides good food for thought.
[url = http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game [/ url]
[
Quote ] You can be stupid.
[/ quote]
already
Just as people cannot be unequivocally divided into two categories of smart and stupid, so players cannot be clearly divided into hardK. and casuals. We need intermediate levels. For some, hardcore is GTA, for others - syndicate, for others - Fivte cent.
I would rather divide games not into hardcore and casual, but into hardcore and non-hardcore. An ideal casual in a vacuum is generally a casual player who sees the game for the first time. So there are enough flash games in the office and he doesn't need your Wii with Locoroka, like 360 ​​with PS3.
A deep (hardcore) game may be accessible to a casual player, but it necessarily contains a stage of comprehending the context or its true meaning, or has an original idea. For example, tony hawk or zelda.
:? ... for casuals? :)
I have a slightly different view of such games than [url = http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game] in article [/ url]. On the one hand, yes, these are all sorts of puzzles or arcades that are simple, you can cut yourself in at work and quickly turn off if the boss comes in, or at home for half an hour, when to do something else in the scrap. More often they are paid or shareware, etc.
They play them from time to time, no one expects them and does not write previews on them, and even more so reviews. These games will not have ardent fans.
On the other hand, I also consider casual games to be casual games, projects that do not spend billions of dollars in budgets, they are poorly advertised, the presence or absence of such games goes unnoticed for the gaming industry in general and for players in particular. These can be games of the genre of love, they can be pathetic clones of ingenious ideas of genius games. Sometimes such games are made with the expectation of just a random audience, people who are not interested in games in principle, and if they get their hands on another, say, a clone of Diablo, they will gladly give the game a couple of evenings, not suspecting that this is just a miserable copy of the great game , and they do not need to know about it, they have other interests.
In general, the concept of the causality of games evolves along with the games themselves. Even in branded games, the same Oblivion, for example, many elements have been introduced that simplify the gameplay (some quest arrows are worth something!) With the expectation that the game could be quickly mastered by a casual user .... here's an element of casual, and this is more and more often.
But games based on films and cartoons, like watching a movie - play a game, it's different. Often this is such a g * that the concept of "related product" is more appropriate here than "casual game", because the calculation is made for a specific audience that has watched a specific film.
[url = http: //forums.gamemag.ru/viewtopic.php? t = 412007] Hmm, 4 voices! Casual games always find their victims. [/ Url]
[Quote] And yet, the most casual, so to speak, hero of our time is Contra [/ quote]
IMHO pure casualshina.
WOW by the way, too, not without a sin: wink:
[quote name = "Taelsien"] Yes, and one more thing - just wondering if all sorts of love-date Japanese sims can be classified as casual in any way? (like Sakura for example) [/ quote]
It depends on which sim ... Sakura , for example, I would take it, but it's not the only one. :)
[quote name = "Taelsien"] And also, the most casual, so to speak, hero of our time - Contra. Our whole school plays it - from young to old - horror X ___ X.
You can get stupid. [/ Quote]
[quote name = "Lucy"] IMHO kazualshina pure water. [/ quote]
Hm ... counter can be attributed to casual games, if you play not professionally, do not take part in championships, etc. ... But in general, in your opinion, it turns out that every game that is very popular among the people is casual. The same battlefield, for example, is also then a casual game. In some ways you are right, of course, but only partially. I personally agree with [b] Kefka [/ b], in this: [quote name = "Kefka"] I would rather divide games not into hardcore and casual, but into hardcore and non-hardcore. An ideal casual in a vacuum is generally a casual player who sees the game for the first time. So there are enough flash games in the office and he doesn't need your Wii with Locoroka, like 360 ​​with PS3. [/ quote]
[b] Konrad [/ b], not really. Casual games that do not require the player to special professional skills. They should entertain him and lick him from head to toe. A monkey can play casual games too.
It's just that these games have casual injections. Compare at least BF and Flashpoint, where you need more skill to play and strain your brains. : wink:
[b] Lucy [/ b], I don't even want to compare them. It's too low for Flashpoint to be compared to BF ... :)
Just a contra (especially 1.6, sors is just fun), you know, it requires a player, or rather not even an individual player, but a team players, well-coordinated tactical actions, excellent reaction, attention, knowledge of the map, weapons and opponent. Of course, all this comes in handy in battle with a serious opponent. What do you think the score will be if you, for example, sit down to play CS with a monkey, or 1x5 monkeys, for example? Will she tear you apart? :)
In all, or almost all, games there are inclusions of casual, because games were originally designed for a large circle of people. You shouldn't call them casual because of this, IMHO ...
hey, game license from the movie "KING KONG"
educate the guru-critics is this casual?
[quote name = "Glebdog"] hey, game license for the movie "KING KONG"
educate the guru-critics is this casual? [/ quote]
Definitely. However, like any film license.
[b] Konrad [/ b], In general, you say the right things. But I'll tell you this) - Contra, absolutely does not require any knowledge of anything, or skills, etc. - connected, into the hands of the keyboard-mouse, run-hide-strain-shoot right and left. The game completely lacks any special scope for action, there are almost no diversifying, thought-provoking possibilities ...
And now - take, for comparison, online and also team Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence - see how much you can do there , ranging from using all sorts of features and devices ending with team dashes in boxes))))))) ...
Here. Contra is one thing. Where did you go and shoot, occasionally thinking where to run. Subsistence is another matter. Where, in a coordinated manner, as a team, come up with what to do to your opponents in order to win. And not only ... Shooting is not the most decisive factor there. There it is necessary to come up with something sensible - this is already a way out.
And in counter you just run stupidly and shoot everyone ...
Well, championships are another matter. There they compete with whom the reaction is better, and who will be faster and from what distance. Tactics ... What nafig tactics are there ?? Everything is terribly limited there. We ran into one corridor, took that place, if not, someone runs ahead, another covers, etc. And that's it. That is, the actions there are _pattern.
There is no such thing as, for example, in SK3 - when right in the dynamics, right in battle, thinking over the next action, and the number of frames to hit, no matter how the enemy does a gi or even interrupts or does a technique that will be faster in frames yours ... I really understand this - to think, to navigate well in this or that situation. You really need skill and skill. You definitely can't put a monkey)))).
well, we figured it out,
then the films shot for games are also casual ... a
closed circle
[Quote] okay sorted it out,
then movies made for games are also casual ... a
closed circle [/ quote]
And what do you think - what is relevant at the moment and is in demand by the public - will be done, focused on everyone - so that everyone buys it and without any problems were able not only to get acquainted, but also to fully appreciate ...
Get used to it.
[b] Taelsien [/ b], you're wrong. At any normal championship, you will be shown what tactics are in counter. I am not saying Subsistence or SC3 is better or worse. It's not about the chips that diversify the gameplay. The fact is that even a simple gameplay can be wrapped up, a huge number of tactical options and opportunities that will never end ... Which is what happened with the counter.
[b] Konrad [/ b], I don't see anything special at all. What are the possibilities ?? There is absolutely no room for action there. Give an example.
I am very familiar with counter. My brother has been playing counter since 1999. He was a member of the Minsk Ultimo team, which will go to the Wcg))). I gave up last year - 5th year, so I got a job). He still plays every day on the network (best of all))) Oh ___ Oh - horror. I will soon go crazy from just one look at Monique)). You would know how many more nerve cells are lost when playing counter)). Damn, I don’t freak out playing in the SK on the championships - a nightmare ...