Shadowstalker16: They don't have mechanics. The only have maximum of 51% of a game with 50% narrative and 1% mechanical complexity, IMO. But it takes shit to see it lacks mechanics. Its obvious. Same with other antigames. Candy Crush and such braindead games insultingly dumb; rfrom the POV of a person who gives priority to mechanics. Its has its players, but it has no business with real mechanically complex games.
Tetris has mechanics. The number is low, but the shape matching system and speed and all that forms a cohesive mechanical experience. A mechanically complex game isn't a pixel-art style thing. Take Assassin's Creed for example.
Too bad there is that vegetable outgrowth MacIntosh trying to impose hisopinion as facts in an attempt to censor games. No tolerance without good riddance I say.
+1 remember kids
Fever_Discordia: That's ridiculous, Candy Crush is a FAR more mechanically complex and strategic game than Tetris with a much greater range of challenges
From simple 'beat a score limit' to Clear all the icing in a set number of moves (make a match 3 on specific squares of the board) and then 'get the fruit to the bottom of the board' challenges, then there's the bonus candies you can get for rows of 4 or more and that's just vanilla Candy Crush, there's more yet mechanics in 'Dreamworld' levels and over in 'Candy Crush Soda'
The games are genuinely challenging and have greater depth and variety than Tetris
I don't think casual is a definition for mechanics, although a demand to be a successful casual game are easy to learn mechanics since casual gamers don't really like steep learning curves.
Its more like how deep you have to be in something to know it.
candy crush is casual because everyone knows of it and many people who play it have not the slightest clue about anything else gaming.
In the same way Naruto is considered casual or 'normie' because if people know one anime, its Naruto, often unaware more even exists.
Everyone knows candy crush. Everyone who plays say XCOM knows CC exists, where only a small potion of the many CC players will know what an XCOM is. Those people, who play casual games only and have almost no further knowledge in gaming, those are the casual gamers.
What could be seen as the difference between say tetris and CC is that many of the people who played and loved tetris are the invested gamers of today, since tetris in its start period required a dedicated console thus requiring a decent amount of investment in the gaming hobby. CC is accessible to everyone who has facebook, eliminating the needed investment factor. This is what makes CC more casual than tetris.
keyvin: This is strange to me. I buy a game to have fun playing the game. Economics don't really enter into it, and I've paid $50 for a AAA title that I get six hours into and quit because it isn't fun. Assasin's Creed 1 was just too repetitive for me for instance.
I mean, I wouldn't pay $60 for a two and a half minute game. But saying a two and a half minute game that cost $1 and provided a meaningful experience is a rip off? It's a snub to the concept that games are also art. Is it really ripping off your clients if in the description you say it's under 5 minutes?
Its just you'll be spending money, and you don't want to spend a lot of money for a game that lasts a blink of an eye.
One could argue that it just isn't fair either, since the chances that a 5 min game had massive development costs are limited. You can find better and lengthier stuff on newgrounds and armorgames for free. So yeah, if you make a blink of an eye vignette game, i'd advice putting it on those sites, you might still earn a little bit from the ad revenue there.
