While I was reading your article, the only thing that came to mind really was "don't?". It's just how the last two paragraphs are written.

What you're describing of casual games really isn't that different in my mind to trying to explain to someone who hates RTS's how they should go about making RTS's. There's a certain something that needs to be there for casual games, and of the successful ones I've played, it's not so much "easy to play, hard to master" or anything. It's more just the fact that the game is genuinely saying "You could play me for just 2 minutes!" which is what gets you to open the game, but once you've loaded it, you end up spending several hours on it and not noticing a thing. You'll keep playing the "tedious" sections of the game, because you know that if you play just a little bit more... you'll unlock the next mode of play. And if you play just a little bit more... you'll get something else. Very much like grinding through an MMO, but for people who enjoy clicking on things.

It's the same deal with slot machines really. An onlooker could easily say "that looks like the most boring game ever. All you do is push a button and watch things spin, then get a result", but there's a certain something that keeps people coming back. It can't just be the money either. I've had a mate win $30,000 on one, and still continue playing after doing so.

But, back to your question of how you're supposed to gamble money on something that you don't find value in, I really don't know that there's any other answer than you're not meant to, as that'd be planning to fail from the start.

Well Said Alexander. Benjamin it seems like you're doing fine where you're at and diving into a new medium with the angle of "I don't like this stuff..." is simply the wrong attitude..

It's like people getting into the iPhone, not because they like the platform or want to make something great on a portable device with a unique interface, but rather.. "Trism made a bunch of money... I want to make a bunch of money too, but I hate Trism".

I don't fault you for having a chip on your shoulder though about something you don't get. I get like that with Twitter after they dropped Gtalk support, but that's another rant..

oh oh.. and mob wars, vampires and all those type of facebook games.. how those games manage to do so well is a mystery. I find them very boring, but the numbers don't lie.. they are very successful and I commend those who have excelled in the facebook space.. but again.. another rant ;)

There's nothing in a "casual game" that's good, a good game requires focus and attention. If a game does not require focus and attention, it actually shouldn't be called a game. Casual implies no requirement on paying attention for extended periods.

>I spent the entire time clicking on what may as well have been a giant red button with the text, “click me”

Is that so different than, say, Diablo?

As Alexander says, if you aren't passionate about it, then don't build it. If you are doing it for commerce only it's going to suck.

At the same time though, don't disrespect a genre that many others like and feel passionate about. I for one cannot stand most MMOs, but I understand that others like them and respect them as a genre. I spent a couple years working in casual games space and saw that there is every bit as much innovation, art, and craft as there is 'core' games. And both spaces have their share of derivative content & knock offs.

Work on something you feel strongly about, and to each his own.

@Alexander - Good point, I never thought about the slot machine analogy. Though I haven't enjoyed slots in the past as much as my friends, I can definitely see the attraction there. When I was referring to the "value" of the game, I meant the value in the gameplay. I couldn't see the value that others have found; like a stereogram that I can't decipher! It's kind of frustrating.

@Kim - I never meant to sound like I'm ranting about "how much casual games suck" =). I only meant to point out how little I know about the attraction to those games. It's obviously a huge success (and growing) for a reason. As you said, to each his own. The connection to Diablo is a tough one to swallow however. In Diablo, you are character taking physical actions and progressing through an ever-changing environment. In several casual games you are often selecting items on a still screen, or combining patterns. I will say that I briefly enjoyed Alice Greenfingers; a pleasant surprise. I haven't yet played Plants vs. Zombies, but I hear that it's a lot of fun.

Honestly I am more jealous than anything else. I wish I enjoyed them more. Hardcore games can be a time-suck to play, and even more to develop.

I'm sure you can think of an idea for a casual game that you would find fun. Who says your game has to be like the ones out there?

Benjamin, regarding the "time-suck" issue of more hardcore games, I have noticed that recent hardcore games tend to have some kind of checkpoint system or something so that it's usually pretty easy to play for 10, 20, or 30 minutes at a time. I think that casual games are influencing core games in this area.

Louis, some casual games are good, and some are crappy. Just like hardcore games. But most of them do meet the definition of "game." I prefer games that require my full attention to "time-wasters" that are meant to kill five minutes, but that doesn't mean that little Flash games on the web are not "real" games.

I would definitely agree with others that as a developer, if you don't see an appeal in casual games, don't develop them (or at least, don't do any design work on them).

However, it is possible to do an indie game that targets a more hardcore audience. Of course, we all tend to use the term "hardcore" differently, but a turn-based strategy or a beat 'em up with a deep combat system can both be done with simpler sprite-based graphics but be designed for a high level of focus and effort, which in my opinion, would make them hardcore. Likewise, if you're one of the story-focused gamers, a good game story can be solo-written.

Certainly, you lose a lot of gamers that want AAA graphics, voice acting, and everything in 3D but you could probably still make money on something like that (I sure hope so because that's what I'm trying to do).

A few examples would be Aveyond (never played it, but I think it's similar to the old Final Fantasies), Astral Masters (Customizable card game. Steep price tag, but fairly fun), or Little Fighter (arcade style beat-em-up that's a bit more advanced than most were).

Unfortunately, I don't know how profitable any of these games are, but they all manage to get some following without spending millions on development.

Anyway, that's my thought. If you aren't designing the types of games you enjoy, you probably won't be designing very good games for any crowd.

How about you spend some time visiting casual connect and some local meetings before saying
"If I don’t know what makes a casual game fun then how can I possibly care to invest in additional freelance resources?"

It's the same as saying "If I don't know what makes pizza delicious then how can I possibly start making pizzas?!?"

@Anatoly - ? Who said I haven't ?

@An Dang - You are absolutely right! This has been my most recent focus over the last few months and my designs have hit some snags, but I'll keep plugging at it. Maybe something will stick someday.

Benjamin,

I agree with most of the comments, "if it ain't your cup of tea, don't drink it". I personally do not find one bit of fun in hidden object games, but some of the time management games are really fun and do well. From a developer working in the casual game space, the money REALLY depends on where the site places you. We work with Big Fish alot and good placement typically means about $30-40k if the game is ok. A good game with good placement is worth about $70-100k. Remember we have a team of 4 and produce pretty high quality games and have a great working relationship with some game publishing sites. Past results do not guarantee future etc, etc.

Hope that helps.

Actually I remember an old technique I and a group of uni mates used to use to build casual games. We used to design big, as though we were working on a much larger game. From that point we took the most fun aspect of the game, and built a mini game out of it. For instance, we were designing a 2D hack and slash, we decided that we didn't really need persistent levels with a tonne of hidden things to find, or even story. We could just build a small environment in which waves of bad guys spawned. We made many of the abilities deform the environment so that this was somewhat dynamic, and then we just added a simple levelling system. Needles to say this was a uni assignment and as such never realised it's completion fully, but the working prototype we had was fun, worked well and wasted a large amount of time.

But a lot of small games can be built in similar fashion, think of a "hardcore" game in existence (or one you want to build), scrap all but the most fun part of it, and make it into a mini game with an acceptable level of repetition. Almost as if you were building a small prototype to demonstrate that one feature of the game. Just it's been polished and is enjoyably replayable.

Although I've never done it professionally, I've always attacked casual design more as a case of think of just one tiny minute action that is fun / entertaining, and make your game out of that. If it is absolutely fun at such a basic level (and is different from anything else you'd find), you should be able to then start expanding upon the game in ways where you are never trying to design to make it "fun". The game is and always has been entertaining since the beginning, and adding more should be enriching the value. If you add something that makes the game less fun, seriously question whether you need it, and remove it if you don't.

I suppose I look at things more from a case of "How do I make the concept of the first match 3", as opposed to "How do I take a match 3 game and turn it into Puzzle Quest?". Although I know starting with something that works and refining it into something else that works is indeed a viable method, I find that it leads to games that are much too similar at their most fundamental mechanics. You're not inherently designing for a casual market, you're trying to take something that isn't casual and make it work to your favour.

Both ways work though. Doing whatever works for you is indeed better than trying to use a different method just because it worked for someone else.

@Jim - thanks alot! It at least gives me a ballpark; certainly the numbers can fall well below that as well, I'm sure. Still, those are promising numbers. I agree that I shouldn't bother if it doesn't interest me; it's more of a curious venture than a search for profits =). I was only asking about the production costs to know if it was going to be a life lesson learned or "I'll lose my shirt". I like to know what makes things tick, and casual games are no exception.