I am just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on what appeals to casual gamers and at the same time what hardcore/competitive gamers can not stand? Even seemingly obvious answers are welcome, I’m looking to explore this angle further.
Further reading:
Too much RNG and catch up mechanics.
It makes the game seemingly more fun (because wacky random things can happen!) and it also protects egos (since, you didn’t lose because you’re bad, but you lost because the game is random and fun), while catch up mechanics (boosting the one that is losing and handicapping the one that’s winning) keep things uncertain until the very end of the game.
Both those things, also discourage anyone from being “serious”(hardcore/competitive) about the game.
I agree with @AcidArrow , though I’d argue that even in a game for serious gamers, the outcome should be uncertain until the very end of the game, or close to it. You want to avoid a situation where the outcome is inevitable, but everybody has to go through the motions anyway. Risk is notorious for this.
Of course one traditional out is to have a tradition of simply resigning when this situation occurs. Both Chess and Go have this; games among serious players are pretty much never played to the end. In modern computer games, though, that’s not generally done.
Although the popularity of competitive/professional card games (CCG’s and poker) puts a dampener on RNG being an issue.
Competitive gaming is a scene, and whatever the scene says goes. Consider the insistence of final destination/no items in Smash. Is there any reason for this? Not really. It’s just that competitive Smash plays by what the fighting game community says, and the fighting game community wants as close to symmetrical conditions as possible. There’s no real reason why adding the random elements wouldn’t feed back into play styles. If anything competitive players don’t want to be perceived as lucky when the reality was they had better zone control.
Well… Hearthstone has a lot of more RNG than the average CCG and is decidedly more casual as a result. But it’s still competitive, yeah.
But CCGs and Poker (and stuff like Bloodbowl) have RNG that is specific and known, you know (or you can make a pretty good guess) the odds before you make a decision, you can calculate them, you can assess the risk and decide if it’s time to take it. The calculation/guesstimation of the odds and the risk assessment is the skill that players compete on.
Compare that to what Nintendo did to make Smash Bros Brawl more casual. They added tripping, which makes your character have 1% chance to trip and fall when you do anything. There is no risk assessment to make and there is nothing you can do about it, it’s just something that sometimes happens.
In direct relation to rts/tbs? Generally these are what casual gamers enjoy, not related to rts or turn based competitive games.
mindless clicking
popping bubbles
matching candy rows
reward without effort
friends requests
facebook high score updates
anything social auto update form the game
walking
one handed play
ability to earn/update/progress without actually playing
finding hidden things in a maze of random things
low competition, easy effortless success
casual chat
mindless clicking
popping bubbles
matching candy rows
reward without effort
friends requests
facebook high score updates
anything social auto update form the game
walking
one handed play
ability to earn/update/progress without actually playing
low competition, easy effortless success
Make it look bright, colorful, and genuinely cute. Hide stats that feed into competitive thinking (win/lose kill/death ratios and the like).
And maybe this sparks some ideas:
Seems suitably horrific.
Very intriguing so far. I am starting to envision an angry 15 year old screaming obscenities about unfairness. Competition requires a level playing field, so you can accurately measure performance. Anything that may let the least skilled player win will be infuriating to them, but great for the casual player who is really just there for the experience.
nice.
This is hilarious, and revealing. I have had so much disappointment with SC2, and now I see it is the game itself that is to blame.
Totally agree that randomness is the biggest way to go casual for multiplayer. When the game result does not depend on the actual actions the players take, hard core players will be driven away and casual players will be attracted. Of course, you can also just kill the multiplayer aspect altogether, which will also appeal to casuals.
Casual is also encouraged by general dumbing down of the content. Make the game playable in small bites. Make the rules simple. Make the difficulty curve relatively easy.
Casual play is also encouraged by bonuses for just turning up. Check out most mobile games, playing once a day typically gives you more benefit then playing for many hours at once.
Randomness skews scoring, which is all competitives care about.
Online multiplayer is a tough promise to fulfill. You can build it, but will they come? (No. Not when they can play popular games.)
I like the idea of comeback mechanics, giving an advantage to the one who is behind.
Umm . . . like what?
It heavily depends on the kind of game. Mario Kart 8 gives you better items the further away from the 1st place you are. Other racing games make the one in the back go faster (look up rubber banding).
Or turn it cooperative? That way there’s still a social aspect to the play, but not a combative one.
On the fence on this one. Coop games generally do reduce or eliminate competitiveness.
But on the other hand they don’t necessarily encourage casualness. Coop games can be hardcore just as easily as they can be casual.
The idea in my head is exactly that rubber banding effect, but somehow using the power of imagination, placed seamlessly into the rules of the RTS game. Not making the player behind suddenly have much stronger guys or anything like that. But basically, making it so that having your numbers drastically reduced or suffering the loss of an expansion also has a potentially positive connotation to it.
The idea is probably really simple but it just hasn’t popped into my head yet, and when it does, it’ll be like . . . oh.
I don’t think co-op or competitive online gameplay should be the focus of extremely small-time indie developers because an online game requires the formation of a community, which means updates, patches, maintenance, etc. which costs money, not to mention advertising to keep new blood coming in as people naturally quit.
Look at all the online games with dwindling or low populations made by serious AAA studios and it becomes clear that the late 90’s/early 2000’s model of “people will play anything with multiplayer in it” is pretty much dead and buried since everything has online multiplayer now.
Maybe have every unit and building need an upkeep of energy (or, whatever kind of resource fits the setting), so when you lose stuff, you suddenly have all this extra energy available, which you can spend to speed up what you’re building.
(or maybe, Units can consume extra energy and become more powerful for a short time?)
Dunno, rough idea.
Just stumbled over this:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/286000/Tooth_and_Tail/
doesn’t this tick a few of the boxes for a casual RTS?
Tax write off.