Talk:Casual game

Suggestion for Cleanup

• Casual games are often not free. Many of them have free and limited demo versions, but (as mentioned in the article) a lot of them do have a non-free deluxe version. Those are not free (for example you won't say Macromedia Flash is free because it has a limited demo version). Anything about casual games being free should be removed from this article.
• A list of casual games would become too long, I suggest to have it removed. At the time I'm writing this, there must be already over hundred casual games, and every week new ones are released. Notables are rightfully displayed.

• Would be helpful if there was as much of a list of mmo casual games.

Nowadays

• someone should write a bot to remove the word "nowadays" from all wikipedia articles. Luvcraft 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Removed common games for which there are no wikipedia articles:

• Magic Ball
• QBeez 2
• Wild Serengeti[1]
• Snowy

and somewhat nonsensical:

===Distribution channels===

There are two distribution channels on the I-net for casual games industry. They are the developers and publishers. In contrast to video games publishers publishers in the casual games industry are responsible for publishing the developed games at their website, marketing and advertising. In that case publishers act as the casual game vendors that obtain their goods from a producer.

And this, basically a reiteration of the concept of shareware:

A large percentage of casual games are distributed on the “try-before-you-buy” basis, i.e. the player downloads a trial (evaluation) feature-limited version of the game for free. During this period he plays the game, yet he has a limited access to the features of the game.

More remains to be done, please take your time as I may not be able to. Arru 13:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Snake

This article lacks any mention of one of the most popular casual mobile phone games ever - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_(video_game)

WP:SPAMHOLE

The state of the external links in this article is awful. Almost every edit in the past month (and there have been a lot of edits in the month before mine has been to add a link of some type.

Perhaps (if there actually is anyone watching this article, as I am from this point on) we should strongly consider Template:Dmoz and then Template:NoMoreLinks afterwards? I am unfamiliar with DMOZ, but I might have to have a look at it tomorrow and try doing something about those links, maybe. Unless someone more experienced with spam is around? --Dreaded Walrus 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does Oberon Media redirect here? --Cuddly Panda 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable casual games

The list is a list of notable casual games. If something has an article on Wikipedia, it is usually because it is notable. If you feel that a game is not notable, then feel free to nominate it for deletion. Therefore, the list of notable games should contain only games that have articles (as opposed to redlinks), and that should be the criteria for inclusion, rather than games that have had an "impact" on the casual games industry. How do we define having an impact, anyway? How do we know that "Super Collapse! 3", a game with about 85,200 Google results has had more of an impact on the industry than Hattrick, a game with around 1,000,000 users, that has spawned spin-offs which in themselves are notable, such as battrick? It's subjective for us to determine which games have had an impact and which haven't.
So, to summarise: The list should include notable casual games, i.e. casual games with articles. If you feel that a game with a game with an article is not notable (as you seem to suggest here), then feel free to send it to WP:AfD as non-notable. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of notable casual games

Notable in this article does not equal notable as defined by wikipedia, but notable as in notable in the casual game industry. For example, Hattrick is not even in the casual game industry as defined in the article.

I have clarified this in notes. As well, cleaned up the list so it is more evident of its purpose.

I believe Jay Is Games should be linked from here as it is a notable collection of only the best casual games.

Alawar Entertainment notability

Alawar Entertainment appears to be quite notable in Eastern Europe, and seems to have created or partnered in the creation of games for some of the other notable game publishers. There is a Russian Wikipedia article on Alawar. Anyone able to help translate or create an English Alawar Entertainment article from scratch? Otherwise may be ok to delete? --Chikinsawsage 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Card battle games

Are these considered casual games? SharkD 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Casual gamer

Yes to merge. This is a natural merge as there is no special content in Casual Gamer and these articles clearly address the same thing. Hadrianheugh 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. Let's merge the two. Frankatca (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

- I also agree. I think "Casual gamer" should be the article that survives. A casual game can be any kind of game -- action, puzzle, adventure -- that targets a casual gamer. 130.63.182.217 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

- I disagree. Casual Games should describe the games. While Casual Gamer should describe the audience. For example, it is the difference between "Videogames" and "Gamer". They are too different things.JulianB12 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the issue. Of course they're two different things. But they both basically refer to the same content. Casual gamers are people who play casual games. Casual games are designed for casual gamers. The definitions are totally circular -- they belong together. Compare that to your example: video games and gamers -- gamer has a special meaning beyond just someone who plays video games (e.g.: hardcore gamer, power gamer, tabletop gamer). 130.63.182.217 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- oppose. the casual gamer article doesn't refer to the target audience of web-based browser games (and possibly other very simple games), which this article seems to be talking about. it refers to the subjective (video-game) cultural term i.e the opposite of hardcore gamer. the term is used in the context of various games not limited to the 'casual games' described here; the two types of gamers co-exist in various games, again of course not limited to the 'casual games' described here. both the casual gamer and hardcore gamer articles are currently very OR-ish; the former in particular is a badly written, non-NPOV pile of crap. however, the term 'casual gamer' and 'casual game', as they are described in the respective articles, are not directly related. Bridies (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

- No merge. I disagree with the target article. This should be used to expand the discussion at Video game#Demographics. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

- No merge. Casual games and casual gamers are actually very different even though they both have "casual" in their names and casual gamers can play casual games. Casual games encompass that section of games that have non-complex control systems, are easy to pick up and put down, require only small spurts of time commitment to reach some sort of reward/goal, and are generally distributed through internet portals (although this distribution is expanding a bit). Casual gamers, on the other hand, are not defined as players that play casual games. Yes, some casual gamers do play casual games. However, the general idea of a casual gamer (not sure there is really a cut-and-dry definition) is a gamer who often does play on a semi-regular basis and perhaps plays a variety of games across multiple genres as well, but does not spend any real huge time commitment even though the time commitment can certainly be greater than that associated with the players of casual games. This is as opposed to "hardcore" gamers who spend a considerable amount of time on one or more games on a regular basis such that they often reach some sort of expert status with relation to some of the games they play. So, in short, casual games and casual gamers are not one in the same and to be a casual gamer does not mean you play casual games. So although I do think that the two articles could use some cleaning up, they should not be merged. NinSage (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Nay. Ridiculous proposition.
NewYork1956 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no ocnsensu in a year and a half to do the merge I think it may be time to take the tags down Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would actually support a merge right now, contrary to what I said last year. I cut down and referenced casual gamer a while ago and it's pretty duplicative of this article and only about a paragraph long. However, yes, in principle a year and a half is far too long for the tags to have been up with no discussion. They can always be put back again if the topic is brought up again. bridies (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it makes any difference i would support a merge now as well. Ive just assumed the discussion went stale. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No to merge. IF this term only related to video games, merging it to a video game only article would make sense, but as I explained on the talk page for the article in question of being merged here, the term has gone for games since prior to video gaming including RPGs, card games, board games, wargames, etc. The term "casual gamer" is not synonymous with video games. The article should be expounded to include what it means in all forms of gaming rather than being pigeonholed to claim the term only refers to video games for the sake of this encyclopedia. shadzar-talk 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources then please. bridies (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for a public domain term? Dragon, Vol. V, No. 11, May 1981 (Issue 49 Page 86) Where a reader writes to the editor asking for the magazine to remain something for "the casual gamer" rather than those with vast knowledge of all games and gaming; including but not limited to those of 9yrs of age. Also the term "casual gamer" has been used to refer to persons that play a game for fun rather than for profit on some tournament or other type of circuit in which there is a prize. Those not playing in the World Poker Tour but still enjoy to play poker of any type at home would be considered a casual gamer in this sense of the term. Sometimes, even when writing an encyclopedia common sense must prevail in the lack of references and sources. Maybe someone would like to track the etymology of the term. I however am not an English major, nor a word/phrase historian. :) Just a gamer, and a casual one of some types of games. shadzar-talk 02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How to recognize casual games?

I was wondered if this flash games platform is to be considered as 'casual games' list or there are different kinds of casual games? Java? Flash? etc... Tnx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.134.177 (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to recognize a casual game. It's always the subject of a dispute. Really, it's a question of whether it's played by casual gamers or not. Some games are targeted at that audience by being lower budget, with shorter play-times. 130.63.104.98 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Casual Games creation tools

Web 2.0 technologies are facilitating the development of simple online tools for creating and sharing casual games collaboratively and competetively. One instance of this is www.Gamebrix.com. The simplicity and power of these new tools combined with the social networking aspects of the Gamebrix portal may portend significant advances in the number of people empowered to create and publish casual games, until recently restricted to serious programmers with considerable programming skills, i.e. ActionScript, PHP, C++, Java, etc.

How best (or whether) to note in the Wikipedia Casual Game article the development of new, possibly paradigm shifting, web 2.0 technologies by a commercial company is an issue that needs consideration by Wikpedians interested in keeping this article up to date. Frankatca (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

Casual games existed long before computers. Noughts and crosses and Hangman are obvious early examples. I plan to rewrite the lede to generalise the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is also flawed in the sense that all early video games of the 1970s/1980s would certainly be considered 'casual games' by today's standards (i.e. 'Space Invaders', 'Asteroids', 'Pac-Man', etc.), and yet they receive no mention here (except for Tetris). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeema (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

chess?

Does anyone besides me find the classing of chess as a casual game to be inelegant at best (and just plain wrong at worst)? I guess the reality is that the currently widely used definitions for video game genres aren't really a taxonomy. -- Akb4 (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

casual vs hardcore

Well I'm not sure I can answer the chess question, but I can definitely sharpen the contrast between hardcore and casual games. I spent about four years doing something called "raiding fantasy roleplaying endgame mobs" and I've switched to casual games like Viva/Hoyle because honestly when I set out to look for a game, I didn't realize what I was getting into. Basically, when you go to take down a fantasy monster at the endgame of a game like WoW or Everquest, you go there with a lot of people together, and at first it's like "hidden object" because you don't know what action you must take or avoid to win (the fail condition is hidden until you kill yourselves on it, often several times, and a pattern is clear).

Once you know the fail condition, you must either take an action at the appropriate time, or act in coordiation to avoid something at the appropriate time, often several times during the fight. Fights last anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. Anything from one mistake to more than one mistake will kill the entire raid party, and you have to start over. Accusations fly as patience frays. Hours pass. Then you finally win. Now you have a method for killing Mob1, there are about 10 in any good dungeon, and the last boss mob is the hardest, good for weeks of endless death until you figure out what to do to survive him.

OK, let's say you figured it out. Now what? Loot! Treasure! Let's say you're in a game that allows you to return and kill him again like Lord of the Rings Online. So now you spend another 5 or 6 hours killing him over and over again so that everyone gets lots of treasure from him while you have a "good group" capable of killing him, and practicing the killing moves so you can tell others how to do it. That's Hardcore. It's not a walk in the park, or fun, or relaxing, and maybe at 4 am, you stumble into bed exhausted. Adrenaline junkie food is what it is.

It wasn't what I was looking for. I was looking for a good story, and to play with elves and gnomes, and look at ever cooler graphics as I advanced. I switched to casual games because honestly, I never wanted what I've described above. I did it for the friends I made along the way to endgame, and that's all. The more casual games they put on DVDs and publish for me to play on PC, the more I'll buy and keep myself occupied without bothering anyone about multiplayer or whatever. I saw a good one recently called "So Blonde" that looked hillarious. Best of luck to the casual game companies. I think the hardcores are going to grow up.

Popcap survey

"A recent survey conducted by one of the largest casual game developers shows that more than one in five (20.5%) players of casual games have a physical, mental or developmental disability" [2]

What? That looks like PopCap site, but is hosted on mediaroom.com. Also, that article is in couple other Google hits. Some very elaborate hoax. I removed this from article, until NOTABLE source quotes this. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the List of Games

I propose that we remove the list of Notable game publishers from the article. It will forever be a point of contention as to which game companies belong on the list and which do not. Much of this talk page is to fight about the inclusion or exclusion items from this list. The list can (and has) grown to an unmanageable size. It is not especially helpful to read this article and then peruse a long list. The hardcore game article does not have a game list. For assistance to decide whether or not to remove the list from the article consult WP:AOAL and WP:AOAL as well as WP:NOT then leave your comment here. If we get agreement I will remove it. prhartcom (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A month has passed since my last comment above, and the list has again grown to a large size. I believe it does not belong in the article. Please leave your comment. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this list to be in the article, too. But have it or not in article depends on other editors. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 07:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - let's not have the list - it's too long and having it in there doesn't add a lot of value. The best thing would probably be to create articles and have a category of Casual games / Casual game developers. I am also proposing a Wikiproject for casual games, since I feel the Wikiproject video games does not have enough of a focus on this area of the industry. find out more here

snarl words

the terms 'casual game' and 'casual gamer' are both snarl words which signify nothing. both this article and casual gamer should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B113:DBA0:0:0:0:103 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right and wrong. "Casual" is a snarl term for gamers and games, used by regular and hardcore gamers. The article should be updated to catch this. 82.45.249.58 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casual game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711072428/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6186207.html?tag=result;title;0 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6186207.html?tag=result;title;0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Casual game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6186207.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121193648/http://www.casualconnect.org/newscontent/11-2007/casualgamesmarketreport2007.html to http://www.casualconnect.org/newscontent/11-2007/casualgamesmarketreport2007.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6186207.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013063300/http://game.dayoo.com/200911/20/68602_100420554.htm to http://game.dayoo.com/200911/20/68602_100420554.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20091102084242/http://www.techgearx.com/china%E2%80%99s-growing-addiction-online-farming-games/ to http://www.techgearx.com/china%E2%80%99s-growing-addiction-online-farming-games/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324084517/http://life.chinatimes.com/2009Cti/Channel/Life/life-article/0%2C5047%2C100304%20112009090100272%2C00.html to http://life.chinatimes.com/2009Cti/Channel/Life/life-article/0%2C5047%2C100304%2B112009090100272%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten all sections of the article, except See Also, to bring it up to date from mostly a ~2007 perspective to ~2019. I kept the same structure and a lot of the content, but removed the "Distribution" section because this is now addressed adequately in previous sections and I didn't think it was necessary to rehash every way to obtain and pay for a game. I added a brief "Casual Games Association" section to at least mention that organization as a place for readers to continue research; and to some extent I think it's valuable to mention just because it legitimizes the term and makes it clear that "casual game" isn't just a slur like "filthy casual", as someone complained above in this Talk page.

One theme that I have not addressed in the article, but would like to one day with cited sources, is that casual games are not really tracked as such anymore. In the mid to late 2000s, PopCap, Big Fish Games, and other companies branded themselves as casual game companies, and it was seen as a separate category in a lot of ways; but few companies do this anymore, except for the new (as of 2018-9) "hypercasual"-branded developers and publishers, because it's a fad and investors know the term. The CGA published one 2007 market research report about the $ sales and player numbers of casual games, but I am not aware of updates to the stats presented in that report; the term "casual game" is not a way that market researchers segment the video game market. Segmentation is by platform or by genre and subgenre or by any of a bunch of intended-audiences.

Another topic that belongs in the article is how there's a continuum from "casual" (or, I guess now, "hypercasual") to "hardcore" game, which is mentioned in the Gamer article. It is ill defined. Some companies, namely Blizzard, have a clear strategy to take a successful existing hardcore game and build a AAA version that is "casualized" to some extent. On Sober Reflection (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Most casual games have..." paragraph

I don't think "fun" makes any sense to mention. ANY game that anyone would want to play they would describe as being "fun" for them, wouldn't they? What's a casual game's "fun ... gameplay" in opposition to? So the definition can't rely on the word "fun" IMO. Unless you're saying "fun, simple" is a phrase with a distinct meaning. I don't think so though.

2001:14BB:678:B23A:6066:CA46:6F35:B838 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)