I try to wait long enough to discover if other players have encountered glitches before I buy a casual game. Sometimes I don't because I have enjoyed previous games in a series or from developers. Lately I have had a couple of games that needed to be uninstalled and reinstalled. I don't think I bothered in either case because it's boring and usually not worth the effort.

What I noticed is that I am now more likely to go and check a casual game WT than I was before because in context I am not certain whether I was counting griffin feathers properly or trying to jump iron-maiden puzzle pieces instead of using them as sliders. As it happens, I enjoy a clever slider. I don't want to check a WT just to be sure I have not run into a glitchy game.

I write this to point out to companies who distribute (or buy, I don't know how that works) these much anticipated, higher quality casual games with well done adventure elements and minimum yet thematically relevant HO scenes that rushing developers to publication has an effect on how buyers react to other games. I prefer to bumble around looking for what I missed rather than want to kick myself later for trusting that what I ran into was a nonexistent but necessary hotspot.

I like knowing that any quagmires and deadends I run into are the result of my own inept game play.

I've been fortunate when it comes to casual games and glitches; not once have I ever encountered a game-stopping bug. And I don't have a high-end computer either. I've also never experienced a problem with a game being sluggish and/or having a jerky mouse. Being as many have had these problems, I sure would like to know why this is. I guess it will remain one of life's little mysteries.

I'm a bit late on this topic but also have had to reload because of glitches, and twice had to request another game.
Big Fish is very responsive to problems but I find more casual games with bugs than I did before.
My old computer has been upgraded to the max so it must be time for a new one, eventhough it's better than the stated requirements for the casual and old adventure games at Big Fish.
It's frustrating though to get three quarters through a game and then have to quit or restart the whole thing.

My topic line has one of those terrible word mistakes. I should have said "effect."

Anyway, I should have mentioned that I am now far more likely to check WTs than previously because I am never sure whether I can't find something because I'm not looking in the right place (always the case with regular adventure games) or because there is a glitch, which seems to be the case with casual games fairly regularly. One example that comes to mind is an IHOG about finding a werewolf. A hole in a tree was supposed to have a hotspot; by the time a rebuild fixed the problem, I couldn't be bothered to reinstall.

I am not faulting BFG support in any way, shape, or form. Their support is top of the line.

I am pointing out that glitches create a ripple effect on my approach to other games.

Unless it's an American thing, Affect was correct in the title, my friend

Adventure/IHOG games are significantly harder to make, probably that's why number of glitchy games have increased. When testing this type of game, developers have to imagine all possible ways the player can play the game and test them for, and sometimes they may miss something.

Still, as 8dognight said, a buggy game hurts all the other games in the long run as well, so it is in the best interests of the developers to create a game without glitches.

Rosaboobie,
No, it's not an "American" thing; the correct word is in the Title of the thread, as shown.