A month ago, our 4-man team, Sapphire Blood Studio, went through another change. At one point, we told our programmer that he has to make a decision about what he wants to drop. Judging from his performance over the past half-a-year, we strongly doubt that he has the ability to manage his current activities while pursing two additional out-of-college courses. He chose to quit, but we continued to counsel him about his direction in life.

Because of that, we had to cancel an ambitious project we planned to finish by December. It's simply impossible with a 3-man crew.

Our initial plan-of-action after that was to focus solely on selling MBF and Immunocide at two upcoming comic conventions during the month (btw, we sold a fourth of our copies during the one before - not too bad. and i promise pics). However, the first one was full, while the second was delayed for several months. Very unfortunate.

Since we've wasted too much time during the trimester already, we agreed on setting up an official club for college. After all, we could use more manpower, budget and increased publicity. I ran a "game developer" club back in high school, but it was far from productive. Is this really going to work? I have my doubts, but what I also hate is wasting time. I went around asking some friends whether they're interested or not.

Coincidentally, we also underestimated the difficulty of our academic courses this trimester, and before we knew it, we failed the midterms. All three of us.

After that, I gave up establishing a club. It's probably too much trouble, factoring in these circumstances. Probably not worth it.

Ironically, now it's those guys I initially asked for help that are enthusiastic about starting this new club. I was on the verge of giving up this club idea entirely, but they're optimistic and very supportive about it. Suddenly, it looks like Sapphire Blood Studio is growing to become a 6-man team. I guess there's no turning back. Our roles are not finalized yet, but so far:

Dawit (Joewoof) - Prez - Design
Wit - Vice Prez - Audio, Music
Sumo - Secretary - Management, PR
Shuksan - Treasurer - Graphics
John - Line Art
Pap - Programming

Personally, I also want some ladies to join the group. Since more than half of our audience is female, having female perspectives is invaluable.

Now, there's the colossal duty of crafting a game concept that:
o will appeal to both sexes of the target age group
o has a subliminal "moral" to satisfy the college administration (and serve as the core of the spirit of the game)
o can be built using the "casual game" framework
o is original, yet captures the "fusion" essense of Thai art

Anyway, wish us luck. Hell, the club may not even get the commissioner's "green light". If we get a lot of freshmen interested in this though, we may be looking at a team size that once rivaled the first Sapphire Blood Studio team of 12. Ok, maybe that's too optimistic.

what's the "casual game" framework?

Oh, I was referring to a "design blueprint" I'm developing using my good ol' player-experience-satisfaction-based analysis "toolkit". It's very interesting how radically different from others casual games are in how they satisfy the player. Sorry for not being precise with my words. My bad. :P

P.S. Holy... I accidentally used mouse gestures on this WinXP PC (me at college). Now I'm not used to Windows. XD

now, let me be clear that i'm not being argumentative - rather, this is an interesting statement and a catalyst for an even more interesting discussion.

do you really view the rewards structures as being radically different in casual games (as you state here)?  personally, i really don't.  the presentation of rewards is just fundamentally different, in my opinion.

i guess you may view the schedules as providing the reward beats at a much more frequent/rapid pace in casual games.  but, is that really the case?  or is it just that those rewards are more blatantly rewards?

as an example, in an action game with a well-designed reward schedule, the player is being rewarded constantly.  this is often achieved through the execution of level design, sound design, animation/fx design, and all those other factors that may not necessarily jump out and say "CONGRATULATIONS PLAYER!  YOU'RE SO AWESOMELY GOOD AT THIS GAME!  GIVE YOURSELF A PAT ON THE BACK!"  rather, they are subtleties integrated directly into the moment to moment action.  however subtle they may be, they all add up continually to produce a frequent sense of satisfaction and reward.  the sound of a jump, the "pop" of an enemy kill, the fluid transition from action to action, from sound to sound, from fx to fx...

i don't really view this as any different than a game like bejeweled's reward schedule - in which the game actually does all the winning for the player and constantly throws nifty sfx and particles at the player, along with always moving them forward in the level structure/game progression.

in essence, an excellent reward schedule is just an essential part of solid game design.

heck, maybe you aren't even saying that the reward structures in casual games are even different, but rather just their presentations are.  in that case, then we're agreeing with eachother and simply furthering a good discussion  ;)  either way, it's a slick topic to spark, so thanks.

Haha, I appreciate these Eo discussions, as it always forces me to be precise in my usually loose statements. Instead of responding directly, lemme just reflect on my thoughts.

As I see it, the reward structure in casual games is radically different because it does NOT force the player to overcome obstacles to attain such rewards. Consider the context within which casual games are designed to be played within. It is a game that is meant to provide a means of venting stress by infusing positive feelings of success, with near-non-existant frustration (or even the threat of possible frustration) involved.

Therefore, what differs casual games from other games, in my eyes, is that the obstacles in them take the absolute backstage. That is often the opposite in other genres, where the obstacle is the key element in which the player's avatar interacts with. One can also say that, in the most popular casual games, hostility towards the player does not exist.

From what I see, great casual games entice and invite the player to earn points, in a way that is analogous to harvesting crops. What's different here, of course, is that the player farms "happy experiences" instead of actually cultivating food. However, one can argue that positive feelings are as essential to life as food; therefore, through casual games, we may actually be providing an important service for our fellow men and women, in a world that is constantly stressful (and argruably increasingly hostile).

Another very important part of a great casual game is how it presents its "game over" message. Likewise, it should also be "rewarding" - meaning a positive, reinforcing experience.

I guess I disagree with your perspective. The reward structure in action games, for instance, not only depends heavily upon overcoming obstacles, but it also relies on the player to define/discover their own success at certain moments. This means that, for many players, they must be able to cope with the negative feelings of failure (from losing to an obstacle) and frustration (from having to repeat a section of the same sequence of experiences). For "nongamers", where the game itself is usually an unacceptably artificial experience, this is a huge turn-off. In other words, the reward structure itself (and not just its presentation) is different, as punishment is often integral for "mainstream" games.

Speaking of "sequence of experience", moment-by-moment variety for great casual games, I've realized, is superior to action games. How the gems in Bejeweled are aligned at any given moment, for example, is never the same. The essence of casual games, it seems, stems from "predictable unpredictability", where you know exactly what is going to happen next at every given moment, but you just don't know how it's going to happen.

The more I discuss about this, the more it becomes intriguing. The curse from having played too many "hardcore" games in the past, I guess, is a prejudice against what many may label as "mere distractions". Design-wise, casual games are very deep, especially considering how one is to go about crafting a great title that can stand out from the mediocre pack AND also provide a magnificent experience. Very challenging - and exciting. :)

Anyway, what's also interesting, I believe, is how these games implement difficulty. Instead of introducing a new obstacle, intensity and challenge are increased merely by speeding up the game. This strictly maintains the seamless, almost unrivaled flow of casual games, but more importantly, when used correctly with the scoring system, it serves as an effective Visible Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment system. Better players are able to speed up the "leveling process" automatically, while less skilled onces are allowed to enjoy the game at their own pace. This is very true for Tetris, for instance.

It bothers me when you say things like "I appreciate these Eo discussions", for some reason.

I like the frustration of difficult tasks, though I prefer to refer to it as adrenaline, or at least a good type of anxiety. The best feeling I ever have when playing games is when I complete something VERY difficult that 1) took many tries (eg. certain levels of Jumper 2), or 2) were just really difficult to complete (eg. like some of the high-health boss battles in Legend of Dragoon).

Nah, that couldn't be restricted simply to casual games, and isn't; a good chunk of space shoot-em-ups stem from the very same idea: you know that enemies are going to come, but you don't possibly know which ones and in which patterns, or how fast/strong they will be. (more eg.'s: random RPG battles, who's the fastest CPU in a racing game). But I'd be darned to call a space-sh'mup a casual game, as non-gamers (apparently) would consider this "unacceptably artificial experience". Non-gamers can be anybody, in my experience. Just because they are a non-gamer does not mean they have a hard time enjoying fiction of any type. Personally, I don't get a lot of gaming time (and actually hardly ever play games, might I add), but it's merely because I'm flooded doing all other kinds of things all the time, and get dragged into more creative endeavors instead. A casual gamer could very well be someone who just plays casual games simply because they tend to be more of a "drop in, play, get out" type of game. Actually, I'd say that "casual gaming" in a sense stems even more from short, simple iterations of play instead. Of course, more hard-core games can be very quick, drop-in and drop-out plays as well, but it'd be hard to argue that intensity, depth, and what you see on the bloody screen aren't factors as well.

I completely agree with you here! If anything, creating a very good and popular casual game should be as hard, if not hardER than creating a well-received hard-core one. I won't go into depth, I'll just say that it's probably like trying to create an asparagus dish that could have an entire elementary school licking their bowls clean.

Personally, I never really feel enlightened from these types of discussions. I see a discussion in which actual material is posed, assessed, and criticized and/or discussed in depth. This could be considered the same thing, but isn't being right now... by me. :D

Sounds like you've got issues. *shrug*

I would attribute those feelings to challenge, excitement & tension rather than frustration or anxiety. Unless, of course, you take pleasure in pain.

The key word here is "exactly", which means that your example may not be a very good one. I can easily argue that there is a level of predictability involved in all games, large or small, but when compared to casual games, the "magnitude of predictability" is far apart. In a shmup game, for instance, the mere fact that you do not know which enemies will appear next and what attacks they will use against you means that there is a clear level of unpredictability involved. Elements in the shmup game world are added and removed constantly, unlike casual ones where you start with a set of elements with which you interact with, with very little or no addition or removal at all. In a good casual game, you always know exactly what's coming next - and some of them, such as Tetris, even explicitly show you which piece is in queue.

I never suggested otherwise. I've said several times in my past arguments that there are always overlapping between game genres. What I'm merely pointing out is where casual games lie in the "diversity spectrum" - and what makes some of them extremely popular.

Instead? I'd say includes, but is not limited to.

I personally don't believe that it's a necessity. Perhaps, I'm incorrectly assuming that we all have extensive experience in appreciating all forms of art, obviously including interactive, electronic entertainment?

I think my posts are long enough as they are, and I can definitely save some eye strain by not attaching examples to every single one of my concepts. I usually reserve that for topics in GMG.

What a loser reply, seriously. But you're not famous for your consideration, I guess.

Me too :D!! We're like, brain-happeners. "...stems more from..." is your clue.

Good :). It addresses the fact that those factors are just as dominant in hardcore games as in casual ones. Which still seems to make more sense.
But you also do in an RPG game, don't you? For example, in Tetris there are 7 different pieces that could come next, and you have NO idea as to which one it could be (which one that appears in the box, that is); in an RPG game, you KNOW that you're going to fight enemies when you go outside, but you don't know which of the 7 different overworld monsters you'll encounter. I think random factors ARE a large part of casual games, as they usually play within a contained area and have rather simple gameplay, but I don't see how it could be any more dominant in the effectiveness of creating a successful casual game as, say, the art style.

Possibly, as I don't have "extensive experience" in doing what you say. I prefer to leave doors open to keep the breadth of creativity open to the universe in all its unpredictability. Not everybody will appreciate all forms of art, that's just life. (and please don't just say "I didn't say otherwise!" to this, that gets tiring after awhile :P) To me it was as simple as "people get inspired, come up with new ideas, enjoy, and learn more from accessing real things that they can see, hear, and play", so it's not that it was a necessity, just an ideal way of going about things. There's nothing wrong with technical discussion, as it can usually be quite fun. But have you ever considered making a post without words, just a link to a download to a game combining all these theories, aspects, and valued factors that you mention? What I'm saying is that it would communicate your ideas much better, especially when they're so detailed that you have to cut your posts short, which is unfortunate as you seem to always have a lot more to say :P

In comparing these types of "appreciation"... normally I read through your posts, trying to picture your theories in action. Some things make sense, but as I read through, it's like "oh, i'm not sure about that", or "wait, that might not be true", or "where did he get that from" or "isn't that obvious". When you post a game, or even just link to an example, we can just assess it and see what works and what doesn't. Then, after some thorough review, you could properly adjust your theories to improve them, and apply them to the next thing. That's why I prefer them, and see them as much more valuable. If we propose an alteration to your theories in words responding to words, you're less likely to believe us, and nothing is really accomplished. It is cool to see how everybody's understandings differ, though.

Either way, what about non-gamers and their acceptance of non-realities?

*shrug*

Nope, nowhere near the extent of predictability of future moments for casual games. The difference is that I'm not interacting with the box - I'm interacting with pieces outside the box. In RPGs, there is obviously no box showing which enemies will appear next, and frankly, there is no reason to. That alone shows how this level of predictability is less important for RPG games, as it does not necessarily make the game any more exciting.

The case is different with casual games, where such predictability also enhances the immersion of the game, just hinting at a larger world where the pieces are coming from. For RPGs, it is exploration and the promise of discovery (and in most cases, also plot) that creates this immersion, not moment-by-moment predictability.

I guess there's no avoiding examples then. :P Maybe it's time for me to double - or triple - my writing speed. At this rate, I'm probably going to spend days responding to blog comments.

It'll become larger issue than just games. One has to ask, are they merely prejudiced against games as a storytelling medium (eg. the world in a game and the world in a novel are, in some sense, not very different) or do they completely reject fantasy worlds as a whole?

The case for predictability in casual games is reasonable, though I don't know if I agree that it enhances 'immersion' - addiction, maybe. But to me immersion is about more than not being able to tear yourself away from the screen. I'd say the whole point of casual games is to leave the fourth wall very much standing and play out 'as a game' in ways other games might try not to. "A larger world where the pieces are coming from" is perhaps a little over-the-top for Tetris - I only see the block-box as a means to give the player some room for planning and thinking a step ahead. As you say though, that sort of game is built on a series of hundreds of small victories and rewards, rather than planning in the sense of huge, monolithic strategies and so on.

Re: RPGs, I'd disagree that plot is necessarily the source of immersion either... but maybe we're using different Immersions.