Plan for Greg Findlay

#1 I think that they would hesitate when approcahing a 3D game, but that is simply because they are not familiar with them.

When you hear somebody saying "I'm a far better gamer than you!" you should really be hearing, "I have for more gaming experience than you!", or "I learned how to be a good gamer alot quicker than you!'.

Im sure once anyone new to a type of game plays it, and likes it, they will gradually become more willing to try that type of game.

#2 3D games do add an element of complexity, but I would think a casual gamer would just as likely buy a 3D game if it was good. For example, I always see a 3D version of tetris, breakout, or other 2D game and it kind of takes away from the gameplay - there's no need for a game like that to be in 3D. However, something like MarbleBlast needs to be in 3D, its fun, and to me it was just as enticing as a good 2D game. I think 2D games are better looking (in general) because they aren't rendered in a 3D engine and subjected to the quality of the player's video card - and looks go a long way in casual gaming. Just looking at the casual gaming sites, it's evident that there just aren't any 3D games available, and I would venture a guess that it's more a development time and cost issue rather than the buyer....

#3 I'm not sure it has to do with 2D vs 3D... I think casual gamers like games that have easy/no learning curve. I also think that casual gamers like games that have simple mechanics (checkers, solitare, etc).

So, a 3D Asteroids game will be just as welcome to a casual gamer as the old school Asteroids... IMO.

-Tim

#4 Casual games tend to be small quick and easy to learn. 3d games are generally quite the opposite. 3d games' art pipeline by having models, bitmaps, level specific elements ( sky, terrian etc) tends to increase download size. Some 3d games can really confused a 'non-gamer' just watching my wife play a FPS makes me motion sick.

#5 @Anthony, Good point... casual gamers like to play games that are easily accessible... they typically don't want to deal with "installations/patches/ect"... they just want to click and play...

-Tim

#6 I think it has more to do with obtusely controlled 3D games than it does the players (though it trickles down certainly to the players who have had bad experiences). Compare Banjo Kazooie to something like Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, or Ratchet and Clank. Devil May Cry's control seems tight because it was RE's scheme done right. RE has always been clunky, but serves its purpose well as long as you persevere to get the control scheme. Ratchet and Clank works extremely well as a platformer and shooter, but it is quite clunky in comparison to Banjo Kazooie, and it becomes more noticable the longer you've been away from platform shooters. Looking at things like Counterstrike or more RTS games where you have a million keys to deal with, often horribly awkwardly, it is easy to see why casual gamers give up. But I think it comes down to a couple of things:

1) learning curve of the control scheme,
2) how well the control scheme is implemented--make sure that everything is as smooth as possible or else the learning curve becomes a slippery slope, and
3) the relationship between the hand-and-eye in natural computer usage.

The last one is something that we often don't think about because we play a lot of games and often create control schemes that are comfortable to us. We play Counterstrike and Rainbow Six. We are used to finger-crippling combos (or in the cast of the Dreamcast version of Rainbow Six, issuing commands in what felt like a fighting game combo). One of the nice things about Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie is that they introduce the carpal-tunnel controls gradually. Other games give you full movement and offer upgrades in the form of weapons or more advanced team mates, etc.

Just a few thoughts, mostly incoherent.

#7 3D games can be 2D games set up to simply use 3D for perspective etc, like a top down shooter may have realistic forshortening on skyscrapers the plane flys over plus dynamic lighting etc. I think casual games have been mostly 2D mainly becauyse the developers want to get as much compatibility with older computers as anything else. With many people still having TNT and older intel video hardware, to get outstanding graphics equivalent to 2D in 3D can be hard.

#8 So lets say that a casual gamer goes to a site to download a new game. The have the choice between a 2D game with a 5 star rating and a 3D game with a 5 star rating. Does the fact that one game is in 3D and the other isn't make a difference in their selection? For sake of argument say that the player hasn't played either game and is going off a few images. Does the fact that the game is in 3D intimidate the player at all?

The more I think about this the more I think it comes down to what the player is controlling more then 2D or 3D. 3D games just tend to have more complex control objects (ie. characters) then what casual gamers usually play with.

#9 Casual gamers have a tough time "thinking" in 3D. Dealing with objects that are off-screen, or even dealing with a first-person perspective. 3D gameplay can be confusing and has a steeper learning curve.

3D graphics are fine, assuming their machine has the hardware to handle it. That's another trick. Casual gamers have no clue what video card (if any) are in their machine. They don't care. They don't want to have to find out. They don't want to update drivers, or configure their display options for an optimum blend of performance and visual quality. They just want the game to RUN with a mouse-click so that they can immediately start having fun. They don't want their game to be any amount of WORK setting up.

Now, I'm painting casual gamers here with pretty broad strokes, but you can ignore that at your own peril. Also note that "indie" games are NOT the same as "casual" games - the two are different sets that happen to have a large intersection between them.

But I think Air Strike 3D - while not really a "casual" game - did pretty well.

#10 Again, I don't think that 3D games are necessarily more complex, but we have tried to make them more complex by allowing another axis of movement...and usually with horrible control schemes. As much as we hate to admit it, we are to blame for some of the worst control schemes on the planet. We've simply made them feel "natural" by repetition.

This constructed complexity factor combined with competativeness is a killer for casual gamers. For example, look at fighting games (2D or 3D, it doesn't matter). They are one of the absolute worst genres for entry-level players because of 1) complexity, and 2) competition. While the "n00b" is trying to learn the basics, the "pwnerer" is making their life frustratingly miserable. And yet, I hear people on every fighting forum I go to complaining that there aren't more fighting games or better fighting games or that they are tailored more to scrubs or that there are more scrubs out there than there used to be, etc...

Yet simplicity and interfacing is often one of the last things we consider. I've been looking at design concepts lately, and it seems that the mentality is more content rather than quality. I love deep RPG systems and worlds, but MMORPG's remind me of RPG's from the early 80's, but instead of badly scripted one-word sentences, someone decided that implementing AIM would be a good idea. So we have extremely chattery, horribly simplistic, yet content-heavy games. It is almost as if we throw content at the user to make them happy rather than gameplay. We distract them by giving them a glorified chat interface so that they can solve quests out of Phantasie or The Magic Candle or Wizardry (but with stellar graphics) while talking about (or complain about someone else talking about) how awful it is working as a receiving clerk but that they'll send nekkid pics if ur h0tz.

Is 3D really more complex, or do we make it more complex? Do we make it unnecessarily complex by emulating advances and mistakes in gameplay?

Anyway, just more random thoughts.

I think that from a developer standpoint, Adrian hit the nail on the head with compatability, though.

#11 I don't think you can put a fixed mold on casual player.

Some casual players have high end shader pc's and like to play wow a couple hours a week instead of all night long. Some casual players have 6 year old junker and like to play 2d game. To me casual gaming is a matter of time not technology.

#12 Basically what I'm getting at is, from a marketing stand point, are you limiting your customer base simply by making a 3D game as opposed to a 2D game if you are designing for the casual market. In the 'mainstream' market the opposite is true, unless you're re-releasing an old game.

Lets look at a specific example then: Marble Blast. Are people intimidated by Marble Blast because it's in 3D? Would it sell better as a 2D game (ignoring the translation issues of making it 2D)?

#13 I agree with Steve Miles. It really doesn't matter whether it is 2d or 3d, people will play it if they like it. Many game are making it hard to tell what dimension it is. People still buy them, meening that they really don't care. Take Age of Kings as an example. It was in 2d, but really nice (3D rendered) graphics made it look 3d. Did anyone say "Ah, Age of Empires have switched to 3D!", when Age of Mythology appeared? I don't think so. Getting back to the original question (i was going slightly offtopic there), yes, casual gamers can take distance to 3d games. But if the the game is a good game, people don't care (as much).