Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
As substanceless as they come.
Also, if you're suggesting that Candy Crush has substance but NBA JAM or T.E. does not, then...:?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
As substanceless as they come.
Also, if you're suggesting that Candy Crush has substance but NBA JAM or T.E. does not, then...:?
I never played Candy Crush, so all I can do is assume.
Candy Crush looks like it has a better single-player challenge due to having tons of levels, but either way I don't think you need an extremely deep game to make it replayable, as long as it's easy to pick up and has a fluid non-stop action with some variety, it's replayable for me. What I don't consider replayable are games that focus on story over gameplay, the goal in those is to finish the story rather than enjoy it purely on its gameplay aspects, so there is little reason to revisit them.
I suppose the question is "What exactly are we defining as 'substance?'" Are you talking about gameplay depth or complexity? Involved storylines? What is "substance"?
Even though they do not appeal to me, casual games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush fill a niche, that being people who want to play games but don't have much time to spare. As such, they have simple, easy-to-understand mechanics that are very-well refined for a slower learning curve. Are they fun in short bursts while waiting for the bus? Almost certainly, even though I will probably never play them in my life.
Depth. Depth. I'm actually usually not a fan of games with too much complexity. You can say I'm more of an Arcade kind of guy. And games with too much complexity have more balance issues anyway.