I don’t often use this, and here is why. (part 3 of ?)

Previous part (part 2)

Its been a long day today, maybe too long. The sun set long ago but I still feel the heat from all the activity before.

I was working on some game, another game. One day you sit back and think to yourself and realize when you're talking about your passion you almost paraphrase the reality as a joke. "Oh, ya, Im working on another game". Almost to imply this is your life, this is your call, and all you were meant to ever do or ever be.

I suppose in some sort of antagonistic sense that could be true, (granted I don't go crazy and decide to take up mountain climbing or something).

Anyways I've been working hard on my game, its casual, and by casual I mean not emphasizing on atmosphere or things that don't yield immediate entertainment.

Now comes the tough part:

What defines entertainment?

Well to me I spend 2.5 to 3 minutes per session just playing my game aimlessly. I don't know if that is just my early onset anxious disorder to get up and go out of games or the game not being entertaining enough or some level of jaded subconscious I just cant shake off. What I do know though is I'm definitely making headway. Every new piece of imagery and audio makes the game come more and more to life. (Something not so apparent to a larger more illustrious ambient game selling for only 2 to 3 times the price).

And comes the next part, game pricing. And why I am aware, yet reserved from commenting too harshly on the reality of "hardcore" games in comparison to "casual" games.

Back in the day all games were casual games. Checkers? casual. Backgamon? casual. Monopoly? casual. You're seeing a pattern I'm hoping.

All games had set rules, set "this is how things go" and usually pitted one human versus another or at a minimum set very simple rulesets how to win so that whatever ai existed did as little per turn to confuse the player as possible.

Nowadays "ambient" games are all about confusing the player. Allowing the player to exist in a persistant state of wonder as he sees each new puzzle, or jaw dropping vista. Unaware there are supposed to be set rulesets as to what defines a game and what he actually is pushing himself towards.

It all sounds very clinical, very reserved, and worse yet, not very creative.

Maybe some of the get rich formulas are?

So ask yourself that, ask yourself. Are you making a 10 dollar masterpiece, or a 5 dollar have fun and drop type game. Is there really shame in choosing the latter?  Lets list what happens with the latter:

* people have fun (most important for me)
* its cheap to produce (hell ya)
* peoples experience the gist of the game quickly and usually enjoy it all the way through (usually, if not they get a large chunk of fun)
* people feel they spent little, and got a decent amount, and are complacent with this (people enjoy your product and aren't put off by price)
* people who pirate your game although it sucks at least each pirated copy isnt 12 months of hard work summed up in 2 hours of pay-less mediocrity (sum of previous points and a hard hitting notion to PC only "hardcore" developers if you care to listen and not just judge).

anyways, I don't know the point of this piece. From reading it again myself it seems very biased towards making casual games on the PC.
They simply yield the best returns.

* people like what you make
* its cheap for people
* its cheap to make
* you can make more of them in less time

all of this sounds fantastic on paper, I dont know if its true, maybe I should experiment. I've been a game developer focusing on the more "hardcore" aspect of games my whole life. I can't speak out of experience on anything. I can only speak out of observation. So shoot me if you see fit, but this is the viewpoint I am observing, and would love to see if other people feel the same way,