I think the only time I've really hated casual gaming was Nintendo's incredibly poor excuse for an E3 line up in 2009. At least I think it was 2009, it was the one where they announced the music game for the wii where you pretended your wiimote was an instrument.
Why is "Casual" bad?
- Thread starter Fuselage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have a hard time swallowing the "depth of play" argument. Let's take all multiplayer FPS games for example. Fans will go on about how "deep" their game is. Let me ask you this: Does it matter, I mean *really* matter, whether you kill enemies with the sniper rifle or dual pistols? No it does not, your score still goes up by 1 and people still call you a douche for killing them. Does having a talent tree make the game deep? No it does not, there will only be 3-4 viable builds at most in any such game, so the field will never be anywhere near as varied as you'd think. Does increasing your place on some scoreboard or achievement counter really matter? No it does not, you will still have to go to work tomorrow.
No matter how involved you think the game is, how many hours you sink into it, how high you get in the rankings, or how vigorously you insult people who play other games, the simple fact is that some day you will stop playing your special game. Then all you will have will be memories which no one except you will care about.
No matter how involved you think the game is, how many hours you sink into it, how high you get in the rankings, or how vigorously you insult people who play other games, the simple fact is that some day you will stop playing your special game. Then all you will have will be memories which no one except you will care about.
Everything this chap says.MiracleOfSound said:
Casual gaming is bad in the same way that donuts are bad. I mean, sure you can eat some every day, but you'll end up *****ing paste out your ass and (quite possibly) die. BUT if you have one every once in a while (casual munchies) then you're gonna be okay.
EDIT:
What is your point? No one cares about someone else's memories......if someone cared about my memories I'd feel like my personal space was being violated.Johnny Impact said:
I wasn't speaking about me personally but if you're curious, yes and no. Gaming is a form of my interest, I play a certain type of games that I have come to define as a different representation of my passion but one important enough to explore and be deeply involved in.McMarbles said:
It's not that I'm prohibiting people, I'm just saying that I believe everyone would be happier and with more meaning in their lives if they found that one thing that strikes them hard and true and spend their time on it rather than casually bouncing around to fads and trends without any sense of identity.
It's not bad, "casual" games (or rather, games designed to be played infrequently for amusement) just tend to be rather tedious and shallow. They aren't all that way and they don't have to be. If, as a medium, games can push through as something better than idle amusement I will die happy (assuming it happens before I'm dead).
As for the situation, this guy gets it:
Only I'm a PC gamer. As my console of choice can never become popular in the mainstream, I have nothing to fear from developers moving to casual games. Personal security allows for a lot of idealism. Still...
As for the situation, this guy gets it:
But I think people can get past that. What if there was a game that was just fun, but also had some superior artistic aspect? That's what video games are all about, right?Gralian said:
Only I'm a PC gamer. As my console of choice can never become popular in the mainstream, I have nothing to fear from developers moving to casual games. Personal security allows for a lot of idealism. Still...
I believe what you are referring to is the "Indie Genre". Now people have quoted me saying you can get artistic casual games, but they are getting 'casual' confused with 'indie'. You can have 'intentional indie design', and you can have 'collateral indie design'. You can have a game like Limbo that seems to have the polish of a big budget studio, but is still very much a brief indie title. If it was made into a full-blown AAA title, it would lose an awful lot of the flair and charm. Limbo works for the sole fact that it is so brief and, ironically, "casual". The art works because it's impacting. It's brief and memorable. It tells a story, not through words, but through actions and the environment. It is not a casual game. The player is meant to be immersed in this forboding and dystopian world. I don't think that's something that can be achieved in the space of five minutes of play, nor would it be much fun to play it in such short bursts. You're meant to sit down two or three times and soak up the game as a whole. There is no real replayability like there is with most casual titles. It's almost like a novel, something you read once, sticks with you, but not something you're going to pick up again for a long time. By "collateral indie", i simply mean a game made by an indie developer that is indie because of monetary restraints, or that it's simply looking for a way to break into the industry. The game is brief, fun, and may happen to have artistic flair, but it's slotted into the indie category simply because it wasn't going for such outlandish production values and polish. Because of this, "collateral indie" titles that do happen to have that aspect of art will often appear to be the result of accident rather than incident. You can get low budget titles that try to appear artistic, but for the most part trying to bet all your chips on zeitgeist culture on what is and what isn't "artistic and thought-provoking" is not a very smart move when you could just make the next Zuma and make a quick buck in the "casual indie" department to get you on your feet.Drake_Dercon said:
I appreciate this is overlooking the "fun" aspect of your argument, but i am trying to set apart what defines a "casual" game from an "indie" game and the difference between an indie game that goes for artistic design and commentary intentionally and an indie game that aims for the casual audience by promoting fun above art, even if said game should happen to strike a cord with what could be considered art.
Using the Zuma example again, can you think of a game like that which is able to be at the same time "fun", "simplistic" and "artistic"? Casual games like Peggle and Plants vs. Zombies are as far from 'art' as one can get, simply because such high-brow sentiments need to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity and appeal towards an extremely broad audience. They're what i would define as "casual" games. Popcap is no longer an indie developer in my eyes; they're a "casual" developer making "casual" games.
This is very true; as a PC gamer, you have little to fear in terms of shovelware. It's not such a juicy market where developers can appeal to every demographic, so as a result, you end up with the artsy indie games like The Path. Unfortunately, as the console market is so broad and diverse, it's ripe for implementing much more basic 'casual' games aimed directly at nobody in particular, so everybody will be able to pick up and play. As a higher emphasis is placed on this mindset, the focus will shift from 'core' games to the 'casual' in order to make the biggest buck. This is a side note and a personal opinion, but i predict this is a shallow pool with limited resources. Eventually, the consumer base isn't going to be interested in picking up the next reiteration of Wii Sports or Kinect Adventures, and the market will stagnate and dry up. I remember reading somewhere that handheld and wii sales had been declining. I know that's because people who've already bought a console aren't going to be buying another one, but it just feels like a sign of the times. There's this large focus on handheld gaming right now what with the 3DS and PSP NG(?) emerging, almost like a last-ditch attempt to save that dying market and re-entice their old audience with new gadgets and toys. I think it's a futile attempt. I also draw an amusing parallel with casual gaming as a whole and handheld gaming. Handheld games are, in my eyes, meant to be played "casually", like when sitting on the bus. The fact they're trying to focus on that particular part of the industry tells me two things. Firstly that they're more focused on marketing toward the casual demographic as a whole (this includes 'hardcore' gamers who enjoy casual games on the side) and secondly that the casual market is already starting to recede. They are, essentially, trying to flog a dead horse or milk a dry cow - and it's a worrying thought.
I'm sorry for that extremely long and relatively unrelated ramble. This is all just my own opinion, i do not claim it to be objective and i hope people don't try to attack it too harshly. Without working in the industry myself, it really is hard to judge just what exactly is going on behind closed doors and where developers and publishers are trying to guide this medium.
Casual gaming? To hell with that, I'm going to wear a damn suit while gaming if I feel like it.
In all seriousness, I think it largely has to do with the fact that games are becoming more mainstream. Video games aren't a fringe hobby anymore, and the industry is beginning to reflect that with games tailored to specific audiences. Some people see those games as counter-productive, as they're titles that they wouldn't play and can't understand why other people play them.
In all seriousness, I think it largely has to do with the fact that games are becoming more mainstream. Video games aren't a fringe hobby anymore, and the industry is beginning to reflect that with games tailored to specific audiences. Some people see those games as counter-productive, as they're titles that they wouldn't play and can't understand why other people play them.
I don't see how casual gamers are scum. O_O
That doesn't seem very relevant to me, shouldn't a hacker or, (perhaps a more specific example)a camper be considered scum? People who take advantage of games' perks and ruin the experience for other people? I think that makes much more sense. Perhaps casual gamers could make it too easy for hardcore gamers, but that doesn't mean they're ruining the fun. A casual gamer wouldn't play Hardcore Search and Destroy too often, because they know they wouldn't be good. Correct?
Casual gamers aren't scum at all.
That doesn't seem very relevant to me, shouldn't a hacker or, (perhaps a more specific example)a camper be considered scum? People who take advantage of games' perks and ruin the experience for other people? I think that makes much more sense. Perhaps casual gamers could make it too easy for hardcore gamers, but that doesn't mean they're ruining the fun. A casual gamer wouldn't play Hardcore Search and Destroy too often, because they know they wouldn't be good. Correct?
Casual gamers aren't scum at all.
No, I'm not. I thought about that and I'm really not. Consider missile command. It was casual. You could play it for five minutes and see nothing in it. You could play it for hours and see nothing in it. You could read into it and see devastating impossibility. It can be deep, but there is no requirement. You might call this "collateral indie", but I don't think it's the same. Don't think it can work in a modern sense? What if the zombies weren't just attacking your house? They were attacking your house and in it, there were people. Simple addition. You can see these people cower in fear of the zombie invasion and will see them transform if the zombies break in. You don't have to gather anything. It could be just absurd comedy. It could also be a slightly deeper concept.Gralian said:
Bejeweled: What if as you go deeper, power-downs become more frequent, malicious and harmful? If you read into it, you start to question the purpose. Why are you doing this? Who's making you keep on going?
I know these aren't the best examples and I know I'm citing extra credits, but games can change. A subtle difference will push them forward as an artistic medium. I think simple and easy addition of simple thought can change games for the better.
I meant largely... I still play console games (and I did lie about PC immunity, we are far from removed from the drivel). People use online PC games (the main source of said drivel) to escape boredom. Visit newgrounds and see what comes up, it's 90% mindless, even with the good ones.Gralian said:
I really don't know where it will go, but game publishers are inexperienced when it comes to creating drivel. After about five years, it needs to change or it will die (the variety might add to its initial shelf life, but varied drivel can't be reshuffled). I really think games are moving in the wrong direction for survival. The core fanbase will always stay with you as long as you don't push it away. Publishers and developers are pushing it away in favour of a base that will simply leave if you can't subject yourself to frequent and radical changes. The way it's set up, the industry can't. Really, the current model should be reversed. The core base always likes variety (so first person shooters and WoW clones need to go out the window). The casual base likes a focus, then a shift, so the variety is killing it (even though people are praising it as "novel"; it's novel because nobody does it and nobody does it for a good reason).
Essentially, mindless fun fades, but there will always be someone who appreciates depth. A good analogy is throwing a water balloon at a wall. It's a lot more fun when you paint on the face of an unpopular politician.
Look at this, I went off on a tangent, too. Looks like something bigger needs to be said.
Heh, if what I'm saying is so ridiculous, why don't you have any counterarguments? =)ciortas1 said:
>casuals don't play hardcore games because the story sucks = True. Try explaining the best video game story to any non-gamer that enjoys good literature and film. Notice that look they're giving you? It's called pity.
>flower and braid are deep = True. This isn't just my opinion, it's the general consensus of those games. Fair enough if you disagree with it, but you'll have a much harder time arguing that point than the opposite
>casuals are the driving force for improvement = I don't think I said *the* driving force for improvement, but they certainly paved the way for making video games more accessible, which was a big problem for the industry until just recently.
I know from the image and lack of a real response you're probably just trolling, but I thought I'd post the above anyway on the slim chance that you actually want to continue the conversation.
What you're talking about is "shovelware", not "casual games". It's a mistake that a lot of people here seem to make. Of course everyone would agree that shovelware is bad, but why is a game that simply uses more accessible mechanics bad? A lot can be done with a simple concept if it's good enough.Xzi said:
And RE Angry Birds vs Mass Effect: What percentage of each developer's efforts do you think went to gameplay as opposed to graphics/etc? I daresay Angry Birds devoted a higher percent of their budget to gameplay than Mass Effect did.
Not that Mass Effect isn't a great game; I like it too. I just think it's a little funny that you're trying to use Angry Birds as an example of a bad casual game when even other game developers think that it's well designed.
I know this post wasn't directed at me, but it touched on the indie/casual debate we were having earlier.Gralian said:
Based on the above it seems that you define a casual game as a game that "promotes fun above art", but wouldn't this describe most games in general? How is this hurting the video game industry?
Well it depends, if a casual game is good such as Angry Birds or Bejewled then there isn't a problem. Its when every single game developer makes nothing but casual games and there all awful. It all goes back to quality over quantity. Look at Tetris its basically a casual game and its one of the most beloved games of all time.
My point was one of progress and innovation as it relates to sales. If only a handful of elitist hardcore gamers are the only people buying the games, gaming itself, as we know it, simply wouldn't exist. I would go so far as to say hardcore gamers owe their existence to casual gamers for this and a number of reasons, most notably, what would the measure of 'hardcore' gaming be without casual gamers to compare them to.veloper said:
Casual isnt bad. Its just COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT TO HARDCORE. I hate using caps, but it needs serious fucking emphasis.
Casual is a huge amount of people playing fluffy shit for 15-30 minutes every now and again.
Hardcore is many, many hours every week.
A nice comparison would be between football fans. I follow Man Utd all year long, engross myself in the teams performances all season long, have actually been to Old Trafford (stadium) to watch matches and really, REALLY give a shit.
My sister on the other hand, is not like this. She insists on watching games when she has nothing better to do, focuses more on the "pretty" players she likes, has very little true understanding of the game, lacks passion, and generally is not deserving of being placed alongside truly passionate fans.
Mixing the two together as if they are equal just takes the piss.
The same with casuals and hardcores.
Developers are particularly greedy these days it seems, much more than I can remember before now. It seems more and more obvious that at the top of the agendawith games its more about the game reaching as many people as possible than being the best game possible. When more and more games are becoming less and less so as not to scare of casuals, it pisses me off.
No matter what arrogant, dumbass devs may say to the contrary, when the game is more and more designed around faceless "fans" who dont ultimately care and only look for the occasional half an hour of enjoyment, my experience as someone looking to get something MUCH deeper and more substantial out of the game suffers.
Thats my take anyway. I suppose "casual" means different things to different people. My view is they are simply people who dont ultimately care about what they are associating with outside of short bursts of light enjoyment. Hardcore gamers are the ones there all season long, thick and thin putting much more into it, and IMO, deserve much more out of it in return.
Edit: And personally I think contrary to what others have said, casuals ARENT the reason games sell so many. Sure, casuals are the reason games sell well INITIALLY. I very much doubt we would have the kind of huge opening week sales we see without casuals.
I however think its more hardcore gamers that keep the sales going years on. The kind who once there is no more hype surrounding a game, are prepared to still buy it.
Casual is a huge amount of people playing fluffy shit for 15-30 minutes every now and again.
Hardcore is many, many hours every week.
A nice comparison would be between football fans. I follow Man Utd all year long, engross myself in the teams performances all season long, have actually been to Old Trafford (stadium) to watch matches and really, REALLY give a shit.
My sister on the other hand, is not like this. She insists on watching games when she has nothing better to do, focuses more on the "pretty" players she likes, has very little true understanding of the game, lacks passion, and generally is not deserving of being placed alongside truly passionate fans.
Mixing the two together as if they are equal just takes the piss.
The same with casuals and hardcores.
Developers are particularly greedy these days it seems, much more than I can remember before now. It seems more and more obvious that at the top of the agendawith games its more about the game reaching as many people as possible than being the best game possible. When more and more games are becoming less and less so as not to scare of casuals, it pisses me off.
No matter what arrogant, dumbass devs may say to the contrary, when the game is more and more designed around faceless "fans" who dont ultimately care and only look for the occasional half an hour of enjoyment, my experience as someone looking to get something MUCH deeper and more substantial out of the game suffers.
Thats my take anyway. I suppose "casual" means different things to different people. My view is they are simply people who dont ultimately care about what they are associating with outside of short bursts of light enjoyment. Hardcore gamers are the ones there all season long, thick and thin putting much more into it, and IMO, deserve much more out of it in return.
Edit: And personally I think contrary to what others have said, casuals ARENT the reason games sell so many. Sure, casuals are the reason games sell well INITIALLY. I very much doubt we would have the kind of huge opening week sales we see without casuals.
I however think its more hardcore gamers that keep the sales going years on. The kind who once there is no more hype surrounding a game, are prepared to still buy it.
No, gaming already existed before everything got dumbed down. Old schoolers were gaming long before the casuals came along. Gaming only got momentum because the core gamers were the early adopters.JourneyMan88 said:
There are obviously enough core gamers to support the type of games of the previous generation and if a game is good, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't have the best visuals and a 20 million budget.
It matters to the companies putting the games out. And perhaps I need to clarify that my position is that casual is not only good for the industry, it's necessary as well for the reasons I've mentioned.veloper said:
For a start I've always found Hardcore Gamer (or hardcore anything) a pretty misleading title. I mean, what's so hardcore about sinking a lot of time into games or books or ironing or whatever the hell your hobby is? If you're going to call yourself a hardcore gamer you should at least be on the side of a mountain with your 360 or screaming through the sky in a jet going at Mach 60 million or whatever on your PS3. Hang gliding over the Amazon on your PC? I forgot where I was going with this...
No offense, but Games like Everquest, Ultima online, Star Wars Galaxies, Dark age of camelot and more had so many absolutely terrible mechanics and lack of tutorials/lack of explanations of deep mechanics, and those were the big names before World of Warcraft, and none of them is a shining piece of work at any point in its history compared to.The Great Googly said:
I don't think it's exactly fair to hit on WoW so hard for being casual, when honestly its probably the first MMO in history to have incredible implementation towards addressing problems many MMOs before it had.