Nekomata.se - Comments

Linnéa: Spreading the cuteness, oh and firefox

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Wed, 9 May 2007 09:24:56 +0200

Ja jäklar så detaljerad den var!

Imponerande :)

Mats N: Spreading the cuteness, oh and firefox

nospam@example.com (Mats N) — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:07:42 +0200

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/08/firefox_crop_ci.html

Kolla lite söderut i Google Earth också, där några människor har försökt skriva FX någonting med flygplan, bilar och sig själva.

Linnéa: Dear internet,

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:26:01 +0200

Ajaj, men säg inte att jag inte varnade dig! Eller gjorde jag det..? Jag gav dig åtminstone ett varnande, avskräckande exempel :)

Mats N: Dear internet,

nospam@example.com (Mats N) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:14:19 +0200

Tell me about it, jag har skrivit ungefär halva Super PLAY på egen hand den här veckan. Eller åtminstone känns det så, alla mina grejor dök upp sista veckan. Ändå tillbringade jag någon halvtimme med det här spelet igår. Borde väl vara sur på dig för det antar jag, men å andra sidan kunde jag ju ha låtit bli att prova :).

Linnéa: Dear internet,

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:03:27 +0200

Ja, visst är det :) Så synd att jag har så mycket att göra just nu att jag trots mina stora ord inte hunnit testa det ordentligt än...

Mats N: Dear internet,

nospam@example.com (Mats N) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:16:46 +0200

Så jävla gulligt, särskilt med Lemmings-ljuden :-).

Linnéa: Nerd humor

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:03:42 +0200

Hm, maybe it would have been in the days of text based browsers? But surely they must have had better stuff even then? :)

Librocrat: Nerd humor

nospam@example.com (Librocrat) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:14:48 +0200

What would that be considered? Internet porn?

Linnéa: Howto: chopsticks

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:33:16 +0200

I may have entangled myself in my own reasoning here but what I guess I was trying to say is that simple rules don't necessarily mean that there is no depth to the game. Without any depth at all a game could be fun for a couple of minutes but in my eyes I don't think it could last any longer than that. The depth in Tetris I guess could be finding different patterns of bricks that works better than others, learning to put these patterns together faster than you could before and so on. But I wouldn't really know since I've never been a hardcore Tetris player myself :)

I guess in the end it boils down to a question of definition (how to define "depth"). But I think "Easy to learn but hard to master" like you wrote, pretty much sums it all up.

Naseer: Howto: chopsticks

nospam@example.com (Naseer) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:37:48 +0200

Well, I am not sure how much depth Tetris for instance has, but this is the game that defines the casual gaming of today.

Everyone can learn the rules of Tetris and get to enjoy it. The game is also very difficult to let go of. Casual gaming companies try to emualte the success of Tetris with their various games.

And thus you have the Hexics, the Zumas, the Bejeweleds and gods know what else.

Casual games today are quite puzzle-centric. As this is a genre where games are generally easy to learn but hard to master, while still behing able to appeal.

Linnéa: Nerd humor

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:57:36 +0200

Så då är jag åtminstone inte ensam om att vara båda, skönt :)

Mats N: Nerd humor

nospam@example.com (Mats N) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:29:45 +0200

Båda. Men kul :)

Linnéa: Howto: chopsticks

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:17:19 +0200

Interesting point, I haven't really thought of the concept "casual" as a way to promote games before. To me it instantly puts it in a better light - anything that can make more people find their way to playing games can't be all that bad. I'm just worried that we will end up with something of a gaming "a- and b-list" where games branded "casual" are being looked down on. Especially if they have mostly female players since everything that's dominated by women sadly tends to be belittled.

On another note, the three qualities you mention - mass appeal, to be easy to learn and difficult to let go of - to me they sound like they would be worthwhile in just about any game. Sometimes I wish that mass appeal wasn't as important as the others but I know that in reality it almost always is the most important one.

To achieve the third one - to be hard to let go of - there has to be some depth to the game or it just wouldn't stay interesting. So if any good game needs depth can they really be "casual" in the way we use the word today? I'm not so sure.

But yeah, if it sounds less intimidating there is a point in doing it anyway.

Naseer: Howto: chopsticks

nospam@example.com (Naseer) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:25:18 +0200

As I work in a casual games company I find these discussions interesting. The thing is though, I am not sure if even we really know what a casual game is. There is no definition per say.

What we're trying to develop are games that have a mass appeal, are easy to learn and difficult to let go of.

I am seeing this direction in the entire industry.

Somehow I think branding some of the games out there as "casual" is a PR-trick designated to allow games to feel less intimidating for the average person. It seems to work quite well.

Linnéa: Kanji craze

nospam@example.com (Linnéa) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:16:20 +0200

While you don't have the advantage of being able to write characters with a stylus as on the DS when sitting in front of a computer - there seemed to be a lot of good information on that page, thanks for the tip.