299: Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

greendrag13

New member
Mar 3, 2010
11
0
0
I'd like to dispute the idea that playing an addictive game like Farmville is equally fun. I've played quite a few flash games that I found to be painfully boring, but ended up keeping me through the end, just because I wanted to keep progressing. I stayed with these games for far toolong, and I did not have fun with them. My constant thought was, "[specific checkpoint] needs to hurry up and happen so I can stop playing this!" And I was greatly displeased with the amount of my time they wasted.
 

UnclGhost

New member
Apr 7, 2010
20
0
0
"More open to new ideas?" Yes, that's right. Shovelware companies keep making all these new, innovative games; if only those curmudgeonly hardcore gamers would play them! It's casual gamers that keep the industry saturated in quality titles like "imagine babyez 3".
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Im not against casual gamers. Im against crap. Casual games dont have to be crap. I just want casual games to be respectable. Give me more stuff like Animal Crossing. Good for casual gamers, great for hardcore gamers. I absolutly love AC, and played it more like a hardcore style...but I didnt have to...buuut I could.
Casual should not mean half-assed shovelware. It should mean fun but simple.
 

NerfedFalcon

Level i Flare!
Mar 23, 2011
7,065
779
118
Gender
Male
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Talk about someone else. I'm the bitter fan that curses the "core" gaming public for not buying creative games like Killer 7 or Persona 4, instead opting to be the 9 millionth person to buy the next CoD. I really don't wish I was a Casual player.
Seconded. This also applies to 'hardcore' 'fans' of Sonic the Hedgehog, who complain about Unleashed being too different from 3&Knux and haven't even BOUGHT Unleashed.
 

RevStu

New member
Dec 10, 2008
12
0
0
Tin Man said:
I for one would like to thank Mr. Sterling for giving me the inspiration for my next blog article?

?Casual gamers are not better then you? - Defending the hardcore from the idea that our long years of investment in the industry isn?t directly responsible to where it all is today.
The state of the mainstream videogames industry today is something you're proud of, is it?
 

RevStu

New member
Dec 10, 2008
12
0
0
Because I'm a gamer, not a stockholder.

(Not that I'd be all that happy if I was a stockholder in most games companies either...)
 

uguito-93

This space for rent
Jul 16, 2009
359
0
0
i think this article shows how everyone has a different opinion of what makes a casual and a hardcore gamer. im just gonna go on i rant of what i think constitutes each category so bare with me here.

a casual gamer is anyone who just plays a game for the mere fact of compulsively playing the same genre of games. IMO this does not apply just to the bored house wives playing farmville day in day out. i know people who's game collection consists entirely of cod 4, mw2 and blops and only play the multiplayer. as far as im concerned they're casual gamers too, the fact that the games contain massive amounts of violence does not change that.

A hardcore is someone who not only plays a range of very different games but also develops a regular interest in the industry (fanboys excluded for obvious reasons). To rebut Mr Stirling's claim that core gamers resist change i think ill simply write the word minecraft. and i mean come on! my collection consists of everything from no more heroes to halo reach. okami to mario galaxy. god of war to persona 4. i doubt a casual gamer is better than me.
 

Thatar

New member
Feb 3, 2011
2
0
0
Great article! I don't think I'm really a hardcore player, my Steam library is full of indie games. Viva la revolution!

And I really did try out Farmville, but still found it utterly stupid. Nope, no fun at all.
 

Smertnik

New member
Apr 5, 2010
1,172
0
0
Eew, Sterling. I absolutely can't stand this guy.
What is he doing on Escapist anyway? Doesn't he write for Destructoid?

Anyhow, aren't we already past stupid categorizations? 'Casual' and 'hardcore' 'gamers' are such meaningless terms, it boggles me why people still use them.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Tin Man said:
I for one would like to thank Mr. Sterling for giving me the inspiration for my next blog article?

?Casual gamers are not better then you? - Defending the hardcore from the idea that our long years of investment in the industry isn?t directly responsible to where it all is today.
I think the fundamental problem is that many of the customers see themselves as "investors." They're consumers. Having bought a game doesn't make you part of the team or give you a vote. In fact, having bought the game means you've already cast your vote.

If I purchase something, then I've officially given that product a great big ol' "yes vote" in the eyes of the folks selling it. Anything I say afterward can be largely disregarded by them. If I manage to convince other people not to buy it, I might make an impact, but it's all after-the-fact.

There are plenty of developers that speak on forums (particularly in the MMO circuit) about how the "hardcore gamers" tend to get too entitled, opinionated, and demanding. As a result, they tend to alienate developers. It should come as no surprise, then, that more developers are starting to look toward audiences that are just plain nicer about things. Casual gamers just aren't as set in their ways, and that is because they haven't developed a misguided sense of "investment" in a particular way of doing things.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Acrisius said:
1. There is nothing new about Farmville. It's not a new type of game. The only "new" thing about it, in any way, is the platform it comes on, which is Facebook. Games of the Farmville-type have existed since long before Facebook and I've played many of them.
We also haven't invented any new meats, vegetables, or spices in quite awhile. But it's still entirely possible for someone to combine them in new ways. That's still a type of originality.

Who are you to judge my character and whether I'm resistant to new things or not? That's more than a little arrogant. I'm not criticizing Farmville because I don't like it, but because it's genuinely bad.
I've suggested what might be the case. Arrogance is stating an opinion as objective fact. For instance, stating that Farmville is "genuinely bad," despite the nine-majillion people playing it right now. It must have some appeal. Farmville is not your cup of tea, but others are chugging it by the gallon and enjoying it.

2. ... The only thing Farmville has proven is that location really is key, even on the internet.
They've also proven that linking simple games with an a-la-carte pricing structure to social networking has phenomenal appeal and potential. The innovation is in customer interaction, not gameplay.

3. ... Immediately after we start playing, we begin forming this emotional and psychological bond to our crappy pixel-farm. It's that bond that makes sure people who don't know any better keep coming back every few hours and manage their farm.
And this happens accidentally? A "genuinely bad" game isn't going to elicit an emotional response of that magnitude. A simplistic, repetitive game? Damn straight. See Tetris. Just because it's simplistic and repetitive doesn't immediate place the Objectively Awful sticker on it.

The Farmville player is not smarter than anyone who dishes out 50 bucks on a game, because at least the 50 bucks-guy makes a conscious choice; he's probably checked up on the game to see if it looks fun for him. If he enjoys it, who are you to say that it was a bad purchase?
(Emphasis mine) I'm not saying that. You are. Just about Farmville players and their "genuinely bad" games for the "small, but gullible minority" who "don't know any better."

Now, about the point the author is making.

When I started reading the article, I was expecting a well-written text with many solid points that I could read with sincere interest. Needless to say, I was disappointed. It was more on the level of what I imagine would be a professional troll....
You didn't like the tone. We've established that, and I haven't really disagreed there. It was intentionally sensationalist and inflammatory, and intended to bring out exactly the sort of reaction you're having--a reaction that proves the point that people with particularly strong opinions (like hardcore gamers) tend to overreact to dissenting points of view. It was fighting extremism with opposing-extremism, which I readily agree doesn't invite dialogue.

But that doesn't mean dialogue can't occur. You've thus far been unable to put aside the tone of the article, and the emotional reaction that it spurred in you. Everything you've posted thus far has been littered with insults and opinion-as-fact absolutes that are indicative of someone posting in anger. That's a barrier to any kind of rational thought or discussion, but it's one you're choosing.
 

minuialear

New member
Jun 15, 2010
237
0
0
I think the fact that the author constantly used soccer "moms" and "grannies" (in other words, women) as his only examples of casual gamers who don't have the know-how that hardcore players possess, was more interesting than the actual article's topic. And that moms weren't referred to just once, but several times throughout the article as an example of people who are blissfully ignorant of the technological world around them.

When are moms going to stop being the default "clueless about gaming/technology/math/hard stuff" demographic? I mean yes, there are probably a lot of moms who don't play games/etc, but there are plenty of dads and grandpas who are just as clueless about all these things, and at this point the gender ratios don't suggest a large enough gap between the sexes to justify not mixing it up every once in awhile.
 

Aureliano

New member
Mar 5, 2009
604
0
0
Thanks, Jim! I am glad to know that stoned teenagers buying shiny things at 4 AM at a 7-11 are better people in every way than people who save their money for things they will still want more than ten seconds after purchase. Sheep are always better than intelligent human beings.
[/sarcasm]
On a serious note: the health of video games as an INDUSTRY does not interest me one bit. If indie developers make free, cheap, or even normal-cost but low-budget games that I like, I am happy as a clam.
 

JonnieT

New member
Mar 31, 2011
1
0
0
Interesting take on 2 factions that the article represents. I believe there is a third group that are in between Casual and Hardcore Gamers. The folks that have to find time just to play 30 mins of a video game doesn't mean they want to play a game with no depth, but doesn't meant they want to play a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 that takes hours to just get into it.