At the Slamdance Guerilla Gamemaker Festival earlier this year, James Gwertzman gave an award on behalf of sponsor PopCap Games. In his introduction, he gave the following set of credentials for a casual game: "A casual game should be fun, easy to play, and relatively polished." Alternative definitions abound. Some argue that it has to do with the low time required per game session. Others say it has to do with bright graphics, non-violent gameplay, and a very broad appeal. Still others invoke the now-tired maxim that a casual game should be easy to learn, hard to master.

And that's all well and good. But doesn't it really seem that casual games are about, well, copying the other casual games that have done well on the marketplace?

Match-3s, preferably with jewels. Mayan, Aztec, or Egyptian-influenced (but wholly irrelevant) visual themes. Letter-placing. Casual games, one might argue, are just as staid and tired in their themes and subgenres as so-called "hardcore" games.

A couple people grew weary and cynical of casual games, and retaliated with penetrating and deeply amusing attacks. Take a look at The Kasual Kit, a faux wizard-style code generator for any type of casual game. It's so convincing, you won't believe it's a prank (it is, check here, via Jesper). Sidenote: casual games might serve as interesting fodder for those of us interested in game generation. The Casual Game Name Generator takes a simpler but equally piercing approach, allowing you to select from a fixed list of a handful of subgenres and get your game's title immediately.

I don't have anything against casual games, but it's probably about time to remind ourselves that casual games do not necessarily entail innovation or experimentation. Some may think that sounds obvious, but I think the imprecise elision of casual games with expanding the gameplaying market (e.g., those mythical women 35-55) demands further scrutiny.