Wii Are the Champions

[Drake the Dragonheart]

Very good article Shamus, and I have to say I do find the shameless use of Wii in the title witty.
Now the snarling fanboyism aside, I think that the fear that since "casual" games are less expensive that "mainstream" games to make, and have proven to be just as if not more profitable, the market might shift heavily or even entirely towards them might me be legitimate, although I feel such worries are largely unfounded, but I can still understand why some would think that.

 

[Joeshie]

Sorry, but I was never a casual gamer. My first real gaming experience started with Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.

The point he was trying to make was that we all started out with games that are much simpler than they are today.

Doom and Wolfenstein 3D are pretty damn simple (you can't even look up or down) when you compare them to the complexity of todays games (most FPS's have crouching, free look, dual weilding, and cover systems, to point out the more obvious ones), but we don't see them as complex because we grew up playing them, and we introduced to each new concept as it was released (or don't you remember the first game you could duck in?)

That's not really a fair comparison. It was far more complex than most other games at that time. It's like pointing to Doom and saying "those graphics suck" without even realizing that they were amazing for their time. Complexity, just like graphics, is very dependent upon what time frame in video games we are talking about.

You also don't need successive games to learn multiple concepts in a video game and the assertion that you do is ridiculous. I know people who jumped into Starcraft, a highly complex RTS, without ever having played an RTS before. It can be somewhat daunting, but it just takes some time and patience.

 

[geizr]

I've been playing video games for some 29-30 years, and I've also come to despair of the current farce that is the hardcore versus casual gamer. I'll exemplify my opinion with the statement that chess is one of the most "hardcore" "casual" games you will ever play. I contend that what distinguishes a true hardcore gamer from a true casual gamer is not the particular game or kinds of games they play; instead, it is their approach and level of immersion into the lifestyle of gaming, i.e. their enthusiasm for gaming, that truly distinguishes them. Thus, I think more appropriate labels would be "enthusiast" and "non-enthusiast", with no accounting for experience with the gaming lifestyle and culture(that's handled by labels such as "newbie", "pro", and "expert"). These labels are not intended to distinguish who is the better or more worthy gamer; rather, they are intended to denote the level of commitment a person has to the lifestyle of gaming, balanced against all other life obligations.

In my opinion, it is the so-called "hardcore" gamer crowd, as it has come to be, that is really more responsible for the contraction of innovation and variation in gaming. Basically, if the game is not some variant of Grand Theft Auto, God of War, or a first person shooter about space-marines, featuring a color palette of butt-shit brown, suicidal-depressive gray, or snot-puke green, then it's just not accepted as a viable and fun game. Also, the hardcore crowd doesn't seem to accept a game unless it is designed to completely monopolize one's time and energy(as far as I have seen, game developer's have been accomplishing this not with increased content requiring extended play but, rather, by using time wasting gimmicks in the design of the game). These attitudes seem to uniformly permeate the current "hardcore" crowd, and this crowd seems to have the loudest face in shaping the direction of gaming. Finally, the bigoted, infantile hostility of the so-called hardcore gamer crowd is definitely not conducive to bringing more people into the gaming culture, which would give more legitimacy and acceptance of gaming within the larger social context. Instead, it serves more to isolate gaming and return gaming to the closeted and highly stereotyped state it had during the 90's and early 2000s. This is ironic considering the more social, and even family-oriented, state of gaming during its earlier years(just think back to the days of the big arcades). In short, I contend it is really the current so-called hardcore crowd that is actually bad for gaming.

From what I see, the so-called casual gamers can actually offer the opportunity to breathe new life into the gaming industry by providing a market that is not inbreed to same basic games or kinds of games. Also, these casual gamers, having the opportunity to be more well-rounded in knowledge, experience, and attitude, can bring new ideas into the gaming community and provide new perspectives on gaming with the greater context of life and society.

In my opinion, the so-called hardcore gamer crowd need not fear a sudden deprecation of their favorite game or game genre. If there is a market for a particular game or kind of game, there will be a developer that will make it(just look at game like Rapelay and shudder). It may not make the front cover of all the gaming magazines anymore, but it will still be out there. What the infusion of so-called casual gamers offer is the potential market support for experimental games that attempt to extend into new areas of gameplay outside the space-marine first-person-shooter, GTA clone, God of War clone, or city racer.

Ultimately, games, as we have come to know them, are about having fun, regardless of any labeling. If a person plays games on a regular basis, then that person is a gamer. Period. We each have a different definition of fun that we each decide, and we seek games that satisfy that definition of fun. The distinction of "hardcore" or "casual" is unimportant and undefined in that context. This elitist, separatist attitude dividing the gaming community into so-called hardcore and casual gamers is nothing but a farcical rationalization of self-importance; simply one group stoking its own ego to think itself superior to another for no truly justifiable reason.

 

[Anaphyis]

Finally, the bigoted, infantile hostility of the so-called hardcore gamer crowd is definitely not conducive to bringing more people into the gaming culture, which would give more legitimacy and acceptance of gaming within the larger social context. Instead, it serves more to isolate gaming and return gaming to the closeted and highly stereotyped state it had during the 90's and early 2000s.

Exactly! If you admitted in public 10 years ago to be a gamer (or today, if you are a girl) your chances of getting jaded and smug looks together with the "video games are for kids" routine were pretty high. Then I remembered someone in the office admitting he was playing World of Warcraft - a 40+ year old guy I would never have pegged as a gamer and I hoped we were finally getting beyond the ghettoization of gamers. But alas, obviously I forgot about basic human psychology.

It's pretty funny actually. Some people live a long time in their ghetto and spend every single moment whining about getting a speck of the spotlight for their hobby, to end intolerance of the mainstream towards it, to get new people to join the flock. Yet, when the gates open and the masses begin to take interest in the hobby, they are getting ridiculed by some pretensions elitists who want their ghetto back. Same thing happened with the Linux community a few years back for example and every fan of some tv series before it was popular has surely witnessed the same.

The funny thing is: We always had casual games, I played them 23 years ago already on a monochrome display connected to a IBM XT with whooping 128 kb of ram. I've never seen them disappear for a period of time and I've never seen Sturgeon's Law (90% of every x is crap) stop applying to video games. So I don't get this whole "casual games equal more crappy games" hysteria. We only labeled casual games "casual games" recently to redraw the vanishing ghetto lines in video game country.

And while I'm not a casual gamer, I have one thing to say to the hardcore crowd: I don't give a f*** about you guys and I don't want to be a part of your little elitist circle; especially not by giving up games that are potentially fun but don't conform with your definition of a "good game." It all boils down to this Southpark quote "If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do." and that's a game I surly won't play.

 

[KDR_11k]

Just a quick note about the "they haven't found review sites yet" part: Many review sites have the same "casual gamers are the death of gaming!" attitude that hardcore gamers have and will not review a game like that fairly, making reviews often useless to those who enjoy "casual" games. When the reviews are useless the only way to learn about good games is word of mouth which spreads much slower and probably leads to the slow sales curves for "casual" games (core games go up pretty fast and down just as fast, resulting in a lot of emphasis on first week sales).

As for the reason the shovelware exists, it's just because the Wii sold so much. A lot of that shovelware originally appeared on the PS2 (like the notorious Ninjabread Man) but the US didn't see it because SCEA had draconian game rejection policies that almost reach NES levels and made the US miss out on Earth Defense Force 2. Here in Europe we got all that shovelware (and EDF2) on the PS2 already. It just stands out on the Wii because there's fewer good games with third parties putting anything that has an ounce of effort but into it on the HD consoles.

NPD was surprised to find that only 13% of Wii titles accounted for 80% of the sales, the usual ratio is 20% to 80%. I think that shows that even the new gamers are not just buying games randomly.

Random food for thought:
- Onslaught (simple FPS game) is currently holding the #1 sales spot in all European regions (or at least the ones I have data about) on the Wii's WiiWare download service. I don't have any recent data about North America since the WWW sales lists only go up on Wednesdays (can a US American or a Canadian check the popular games list in their Wii Shop Channel? The countries have dfferent charts so saying where you're checking is important). Then again it can be learned quickly and played in 10-15 minute increments...
- Nintendo considers Animal Crossing a core game so yeah, it's not "casual".
- Ever seen a casual gamer fixate on one game? They may not have general gaming skills but they will often develop very high skill levels in a game they focus on. My sister went for OCD ratings in World of Goo, my father is unbeatable at Tetris, etc.

 

[UtopiaV1]

I agree with everything mr Shamus wrote, except the part about the Wii being a 'low-cost' console. Have you tried to buy one in the UK recently? It's like they're made out of fucking gold! That might just be the retailers squeezing their new 'stupid' customers for all their hard-earned cash. My mum and dad bought 'Lips' (karaoke game) for their Xbox 360 recently, and it set them back £60 ($110 approx). If they had asked me to get it for them (as I am familiar with the culture and therefore know the best places to shop), I could have got it for a 6th of that price.

Oh the Ellis Island immigrant metaphor couldn't have been more poignant.

 

[shMerker]

Shamus, are you at all familiar with Sean Malstrom [http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html]?

 

[Simriel]

Finally, the bigoted, infantile hostility of the so-called hardcore gamer crowd is definitely not conducive to bringing more people into the gaming culture, which would give more legitimacy and acceptance of gaming within the larger social context. Instead, it serves more to isolate gaming and return gaming to the closeted and highly stereotyped state it had during the 90's and early 2000s.

Exactly! If you admitted in public 10 years ago to be a gamer (or today, if you are a girl) your chances of getting jaded and smug looks together with the "video games are for kids" routine were pretty high. Then I remembered someone in the office admitting he was playing World of Warcraft - a 40+ year old guy I would never have pegged as a gamer and I hoped we were finally getting beyond the ghettoization of gamers. But alas, obviously I forgot about basic human psychology.

It's pretty funny actually. Some people live a long time in their ghetto and spend every single moment whining about getting a speck of the spotlight for their hobby, to end intolerance of the mainstream towards it, to get new people to join the flock. Yet, when the gates open and the masses begin to take interest in the hobby, they are getting ridiculed by some pretensions elitists who want their ghetto back. Same thing happened with the Linux community a few years back for example and every fan of some tv series before it was popular has surely witnessed the same.

The funny thing is: We always had casual games, I played them 23 years ago already on a monochrome display connected to a IBM XT with whooping 128 kb of ram. I've never seen them disappear for a period of time and I've never seen Sturgeon's Law (90% of every x is crap) stop applying to video games. So I don't get this whole "casual games equal more crappy games" hysteria. We only labeled casual games "casual games" recently to redraw the vanishing ghetto lines in video game country.

And while I'm not a casual gamer, I have one thing to say to the hardcore crowd: I don't give a f*** about you guys and I don't want to be a part of your little elitist circle; especially not by giving up games that are potentially fun but don't conform with your definition of a "good game." It all boils down to this Southpark quote "If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do." and that's a game I surly won't play.

I could hug you. I too am not a 'Casual gamer' but i do enjoy casual games just as much as i enjoy the latest GOW (either) or Fallout 3. Why do people always have to try and lump people in little groups?

 

[ShadowKirby]

Gaming was one step away from becoming an acceptable form of media.

No it wasn't. Maybe I missed something but gaming wasn't as much studied and analysed, or respected, back one generation.

If anything, companies like Nintendo embracing such backwards philosphy are doing more to damage gaming then they are to evolve it. But like I said, there is a place for casual gaming within the market. Gamers need to be informed, though. They need to learn what constitutes a good game and a bad one. If they don't, it'll be casual shovelware from here on out. Because that's what's driving the market right now. Do I really need to remind anyone what happened in 1983?

There's a few things wrong with what you said. While I agree that new gamers should be informed of what is good and bad, I think that in the long run, they will find out themselves. They are not stupid retards with no taste. Believe me, shovelwares are not driving the market right now or else your definition of a shovelware is pretty wide sir. I'm pretty sure that if you look at sales charts you won't see a lot of shovelwares in the top 10. What drives the industry are big games with a lot of hype (deserved or undeserved) built around them and sequels of those franchises. 1983 won't happen again because of that. The industry is much stronger than it was back then.

 

[Shamus Young]

Shamus, are you at all familiar with Sean Malstrom [http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html]?

Yes. The Birdmen article was a great read. I actually talked about it at one point in the past:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2068

...if that interests you.

 

[Say Anything]

You know Shamus, not everyone starts out on casual games. My first real introductions to video gaming were Starcraft and Rainbow Six. I know I'm from a different generation from you, but to me your argument doesn't hold weight. I didn't get introduced to the casual market until after I was a 'hardcore gamer'. Now we have a whole new generation who's first introduction to video gaming is games like Halo. Think of it from their perspective. Halo is their frame of reference that other games are measured against. I do have a love of casual games, but can you see how people from the 'Halo Generation' might consider casual games uninteresting?

"Uninteresting", yes. "Stupid, and for retards", no. Which was the argument I was addressing. I specifically left out those people - still under 18 for the most part - because they aren't buying their own consoles.

Not only this, but (exactly like the podcast someone was talking about a few posts up) it's wrong to say that a whole group of gamers are wrong and therefore scum because they don't have the same view of enjoyment as we do. It's a plague that's infected more than the gaming community; I can't tell you how many times I see people arguing on YouTube about who's taste in music is better. You can have the red tricycle, or you can have the blue tricycle, or you can have both, but neither is better than the other.

 

[krellen]

Gaming was one step away from becoming an acceptable form of media. Not a toy, like many pundits and politicians mistakenley see it. But a form of media! If anything, companies like Nintendo embracing such backwards philosphy are doing more to damage gaming then they are to evolve it.

Horse Hockey.

If you want video games embraced as a form of media, you must first make them mainstream. Only after everyone accepts them as a form of entertainment can they transition into "media". Radio and TV were just gimmicks at the beginning; they only became media after their utility and entertainment value were discovered by the masses and they entered mainstream culture.

I was on the internet back when it was insular and isolated, before the commercialisation of the web and the explosion of internet-based content. I remember when the internet was not viewed as "media", but as a trifle waste of time. It wasn't until everyone started using the internet that it became a viable form of media, a respected place to deliver art, information and entertainment.

Wide-spread acceptance of video games is a vital step in their acceptance as "media". Decrying Nintendo's attempts to do this is counter-productive to your stated goals.

 

[hellsop]

I don't know if I've recommended this before, but I think of it every time you start working on casual gamers. Yohoho Puzzle Pirates by Three Rings Design is (as far as I can tell) one of the few MMORPGs that meets the casual game need fairly well. There's no obligatory time commitments of more than about 20 minutes, the mechanics of actions in the game basically being puzzle games of spacefilling or color matching, essentially no lethality, and (at least the servers that people pay real money for open access instead of being able to accumulate in-game money to do so) the player interactions tend to be polite, helpful, and moderately well-versed in niceties of grammar and spelling.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

I personally would love to see the day that people stop classifying themselves as "hardcore" gamers. The very concept of being hardcore is a term that makes me gag everytime I hear it. Gaming is gaming, there should be no title affiliated with it. If you don't like games that are mini-game based, then you don't like them, that doesn't make them any less a game than killzone 2. So for the love of god, stop referring to yourself like you have some sort of prestigious title in gaming, and let the term hardcore die off in peace...

also, I don't care about casual games, cause I don't buy them. No harm no foul. I own a 360 and a wii, so I can get the best of both worlds for genres of games (mainly just FPS on 360, and everything else on the wii).

 

[Valiance]

I loved this article, and it summed up something I've been meaning to say for a long time. Besides, the Wii has enough "mainstream" titles that will bring people up from the "newcomer" stage if they choose to progress.

Do you remember back when all you needed to be a gamer was a pocket full of quarters and a trip to the arcade? Now I need this console, or that console, or this game for this console or else I'm not as serious about it as the rest of you, or I have to play this much time per week, or buy new games this often, etc, etc, etc.

The Wii reminded us that anyone can enjoy some form of video game, and if it comes down to Nintendo selling bathroom scales, midi synthesizers, and rehashing franchises for the hundredth time, I don't think we should really mind. It doesn't force us to play it. Some people like it who aren't experienced in what we could argue is better.

It's as if you're an artist, and someone drew a picture that had many flaws in it. Other people like it. You, as an experienced artist, can explain to them why they shouldn't like it, why this other picture is better, why they're terrible or stupid for enjoying it, but you can't make them stop enjoying it. Why would you try to anyway? They're having fun, aren't they?

 

[Cyclomega]

I really don't think so, OP.

Most people I know with a Wii will either play forever the same mini-games or lame IQ tests with their trendy friends, then let the console gather dust in a cupboard, or they'll play Zelda, Smash Bros, get mad at the shitty online game system of Smash, and then buy another console for "bigger" games. In fact, I know more people of column B, and they don't play with their Wii anymore, they bought themselves a PS3 or a X360. There are way too many crappy 3d-party games, and the really good games are scarce or directed at a specific audience (I really don't think just anyone can pick up Zack & Wiki and have fun right away, same for No More Heroes, no matter how cool they are).

Worse, if the only good games of the Wii are the "internal" Nintendo games, then the catalogue is looking bad...
I know there are Guitar Hero games on the Wii, but it's part of those marginal games I was counting.

Plus I already have both first Guitar Heroes on my PS2, for instance, so that's a failed incentive, I'm fed up of the series already...

 

[geizr]

There is another thing that burns me about this farcical distinction of hardcore vs casual gaming. Let's assume for the moment that these labels are legitimate and well-defined for the sake of argument. The common thinking among the hardcore crowd appears to be that casual games are inherently crappy by fact of nature. I contend this is not true and that any perceived crappiness of the casual game is an artifact of poor or lazy design on the part of the developer, not the result of any intrinsic property of casual games. The only reasonable distinctions that I can see that set a casual game apart from a hardcore game is the lack of encyclopedic rules sets and a pacing that does not necessitate life destroying time commitments to play the game. Apart from this, many hardcore games are just as shallow, repetitive, and crappy, if not more so, as their more casual counterparts are accused of being.

In my opinion, many game developers are trying to "cash-in" on the casual gaming craze and completely misunderstand the nature of a casual game. Again, I exemplify what I mean with the statement that chess is one of the most "hardcore" "casual" games you will ever play. The entire set of rules of chess can be written on one side of a single sheet of paper, and these rules are quite simple. However, mastering the strategy and play of chess could take a life-time of effort and learning; this is because of the many emergent situations arising from the interactions of these rules and the actions of the players. Another example is the game Pac-Man. If one researches the design of Pac-Man, one will discover that its rule set is surprisingly small and simple. But, being able to play the game with significant skill, without memorizing one of the patterns, takes considerable practice and understanding of how these rules interact within the game to create responses of the ghost monsters to the player's actions.

The two examples above exemplify what I consider is the deficiency in these game developers' understanding of the design and play of the casual game. The casual game is designed with a small set of simple rules that are self-consistent and universally applied throughout the game. However, these rules interact significantly with each other and with the player in a self-feedback manner such to bring about emergent behaviors and situations that are difficult to predict a priori. A great deal of variation and complexity can develop within the casual game as a result of this interaction. This serves to create a fun and varying gaming experience for the gamer without requiring massive time commitment, memorization of encyclopedic special-case rules, or spreadsheet optimization of gear and character specification.

My own feeling is that developing a compelling casual game is more a challenge than any hardcore game. The hardcore game merely requires the packing of more parts into the game, with little regard for consistency or interaction, only presentation. The casual game, one the other hand, requires a very carefully considered set of choices by the game developer to create a highly interactive experience that evolves, responds, and varies significantly with player actions, and further to allow the player to respond in creative ways within the context of the game.

Casual games create their own self-consistent reality, when done properly, rather than constantly attempt to achieve similitude with the real-world(the uncanny valley is a very noticeable problem for the current crop of "realistic" games). As long as the game clearly establishes its rules and does not pervert, subvert, or violate those rules at "convenient" moments, the gamer is able to suspend disbelief and immerse himself within the reality presented by the game. This is something, in my opinion, that many of the hardcore games have so far failed to achieve. In other words, I contend that immersion is achieved by the clear establishment of self-consistency and inviolability, not mimicry. Superior graphics and sound only serve to enhance the immersion, not establish it.

Now, moving off the demarcation of hardcore versus casual game, in my opinion, there are really six kinds of games: "excellent", "good", "decent", "mediocre", "half-assed", and "shitty"(there is a hidden seventh kind, "uninteresting", representing games the gamer just doesn't care about). These are subjective categories as they depend on the tastes and preferences of the gamer. Attempting to attach measurable objectivity to these categories subverts gamer choice and threatens to reduce gaming from an exciting, entertaining experience to a mere number-crunching optimization exercise. In other words, it defeats the artistry and spirit of gaming, turning gaming into a monotonous, inbreed stream of clones and sequels.

I could probably say more, but I think this wall-of-text has grown enough.

 

[sonidraw]

Okay, I just finished registering my account specifically so I could comment on this article. So, think of me as the forum newbie. I suppose I'm on the border between hardcore and casual gaming, without standing fully in either category. I love playing PC games like Mount&Blade, Civilization, Europa Universalis, Battlefield 2, and Counter-Strike (to name a few), but I stopped playing console games after the N64, so I know zilch about modern-day games. My first PC game was Age of Empires, and my first console games were Block-Out, Sonic the Hedgehog and Joe Montana Football for the Sega Genesis. That's just a little background to put my comment in perspective.

For me, all that really matters about a game is whether or not it is fun (for me), but I know full well that what's fun for me is not necessarily fun for others, and vice versa. As long as a game has a market, I see nothing wrong with producing it. Obviously, someone likes it. If they didn't, they wouldn't play it. Take Halo for instance: it makes my eyes bleed and gives me a headache. But I can understand why it's popular, and at the very least, it makes a fun party game. The only time I'm willing to play it is when I'm at a party with friends. Same with Rock Band, although I personally prefer WATCHING my friends play it than actually playing it myself. It's amusing.