Talk:Casual game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Suggenstion for Cleanup
- Casual games are often not free. Many of them have free and limited demo versions, but (as mentioned in the article) a lot of them do have a non-free deluxe version. Those are not free (for example you won't say Macromedia Flash is free because it has a limited demo version). Anything about casual games being free should be removed from this article.
- A list of casual games would become too long, I suggest to have it removed. At the time I'm writing this, there must be already over hundred casual games, and every week new ones are released.
- Would be helpful if there was as much of a list of mmo casual games.
[edit] Nowadays
- someone should write a bot to remove the word "nowadays" from all wikipedia articles. Luvcraft 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Removed common games for which there are no wikipedia articles:
- Magic Ball
- QBeez 2
- Wild Serengeti[1]
- Snowy
and somewhat nonsensical:
- ===Distribution channels===
- There are two distribution channels on the I-net for casual games industry. They are the developers and publishers. In contrast to video games publishers publishers in the casual games industry are responsible for publishing the developed games at their website, marketing and advertising. In that case publishers act as the casual game vendors that obtain their goods from a producer.
And this, basically a reiteration of the concept of shareware:
- A large percentage of casual games are distributed on the “try-before-you-buy” basis, i.e. the player downloads a trial (evaluation) feature-limited version of the game for free. During this period he plays the game, yet he has a limited access to the features of the game.
More remains to be done, please take your time as I may not be able to. Arru 13:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Snake
This article lacks any mention of one of the most popular casual mobile phone games ever - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_(video_game)
[edit] WP:SPAMHOLE
The state of the external links in this article is awful. Almost every edit in the past month (and there have been a lot of edits in the month before mine has been to add a link of some type.
Perhaps (if there actually is anyone watching this article, as I am from this point on) we should strongly consider Template:Dmoz and then Template:NoMoreLinks afterwards? I am unfamiliar with DMOZ, but I might have to have a look at it tomorrow and try doing something about those links, maybe. Unless someone more experienced with spam is around? --Dreaded Walrus 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)