Are casual gamers ruining gaming?
- Thread starter scaledriver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So because they give their core audience what they want, they are abandoning them?Thaius said:
Nonsense. You know what Nintendo did last generation? They gave us a Mario title, a Smash Bros title, 2 Metroid titles (not developed by them but still) a Mario Kart title, a Fire Emblem title, two Pikmin titles and two Zelda titles, with quite a bit more I haven't mentioned.
You know what they did and are doing this generation? They gave us one Mario title and are about to give another, a Smash Bros title, a Metroid title with another coming, a Mario Kart title, a Fire Emblem title, two new IPs (Disaster: Day of Crisis and Takt of Magic, one was given mixed reception and half a Zelda title with another coming, an upcoming pikmin title, and other games coming I haven't mentioned.
Nintendo has been doing this for 20 odd years now. They do it because that's what their audience wants. Considering they never created a new IP that applied to us last generation, does it mean that Nintendo turned their back on their core audience even earlier than this generation?
So really, not only have they not abandoned the core gamer, but they are in theory giving them more games than they did last generation. Just because they are releasing games for another demographic, it doesn't mean they are abandoning their core demographic, (see above).
This is comparable to a child playing with toys, and it bothers it that there is another child enjoying a separate set of toys he/she doesn't even like. It's silly.
And you've caused me to type a lot more than I expected to type.
/rant
And you don't expect Microsoft, with the marketing giant it can and has been, to turn Natal+360 Arcade into a casual experience? Did you see the promo for Natal? Controller-less family fun is round the corner.Julianking93 said:
"Casual gaming" as a mainstream product has existed since the PS1. Think about it.
I partly agree with GrinningManiac. The true problem is the stagnation of creativity. Games Like MW:2 Guitar Hero 5, and any of the Mini-Game games are the real problem. When developers focus on putting these games out because they know that they can make an easy dollar because the general populace (my self included) can be fooled into buying the same game with a new paint job then that's where the problem lies.
Yes, I know casual gaming has been around forever. That's why I said it. Its been around since about the N64 (at least thats when I remember). And no I haven't seen the promo for Natal but I'm sure it shows a family of 4 enjoying a family friendly gaming experience by flailing their arms about like their covered in ants.ChromeAlchemist said:
I'm not one of those people who thinks that gaming is for hardcore people only but its just kind of annoying to me when I see the Wii trying to act like a baby toy when its developed by one of my favorite developers
Ha! Ha!
I'm here to defend the casual gamers from the tyranny of the elitist attitude that has plagued mankind(and gamers) since 1947!
This wall between us must be destroyed or we shall watch our precious empire burn!
Hardcore gamers are not anymore important than casual gamers, and we are all brothers in the beautiful kingdom of escapism.
I'm here to defend the casual gamers from the tyranny of the elitist attitude that has plagued mankind(and gamers) since 1947!
This wall between us must be destroyed or we shall watch our precious empire burn!
Hardcore gamers are not anymore important than casual gamers, and we are all brothers in the beautiful kingdom of escapism.
Their games are mostly geared towards families and 5 year old's. Go to a game store and look at all the Wii games. Most of them are shit like Hello Kitty Island Adventure and Barbie Magic Pony RideChromeAlchemist said:
I think this is why difficulty levels exist. Perhaps that's why some games have the 'Casual difficulty?' Joking.
Casual gamers are not ruining gaming. It's not spoiling our experiences, It's not ruining our single or multplayers, It's not messing around with genres. It's forcing game developers to make games that cater for more people at once and become interchangable, which to me, has no downsides. There are no 'Hardcore' players if everyone was a 'Hardcore' player. You'd just be another gamer.
Casual gamers are not ruining gaming. It's not spoiling our experiences, It's not ruining our single or multplayers, It's not messing around with genres. It's forcing game developers to make games that cater for more people at once and become interchangable, which to me, has no downsides. There are no 'Hardcore' players if everyone was a 'Hardcore' player. You'd just be another gamer.
The whole 'Casual vs Hardcore' saga is giving me a headache...
One one side of many we have gamers from 'ye golden age' complaining about new gamers,
some from the last age weaned on the PSX or PS2 era, and the PC crowd.
Regardless where you started, personally I started in the last category, with the early PCs like the Commodore and Atari, the arcades, and the Intellivision and 2600.
Games are still more complicated and involving than those days, hell even Tetris was considered state of the art in it's time.
Also, keep well in mind that many of the big names in games are in their 40s+ now as well, most others have been inspired by these earlier 'pioneers' to the industry.
The problem doesn't lie with the casual, the hardcore, or any other group people like to adhere themselves to, it lies with more than that.
The problem with most games of today is multifold, stemming from their audiences, to the market, and to what makes the most money...among other things.
Many of todays games are called 'quality' though that can be applied rather loosely in reality.
I notice many games are of 'a' quality, that being Production Quality.
they look good, sound good, and many play rather good (not all by far). Though it can be said they lack something, and for some, not. Some are cookie cutter, cut from a similar cloth to too many other games, simply swapping palettes and names, though very much the same game. Little is made to create a mythos to the game or make it stand out all it's own.
IE; same game, different visuals.
The others try to be unique, maybe better, but fall prey to trying to compete with the sales of the 'easier to make' games, leaving them a little less than the first conception led anyone to believe.
Now before I get carried away...
People buy these games.
They generate profit.
Thus, developers who have a more corporate standing tend to try and see how much they can save on time and expenses and still make the same fortune. Yet, people still buy the games, complain about them, and buy the next one regardless of earlier complaints.
There is no diversity to blame inherantly, it's all about the money.
Why spend 9 digits to make a 15 hour game that'll make back nearly the same, when you can make a 10 hour game spending 8 digits and get 9 in return.
Games today are easier, the arty label is thrown in often, usually when a game is little more than an interactive movie, mainly because this makes money.
The only thing changed are expectations. That games need to be more diffcult and expansive.
Don't get me wrong...I WANT a game that's longer, more challenging, and requires more than 5 braincells to understand. Just may not see it until someone makes it, or one of the like-minded makes one themselves. That being said, there's a difference between a game that is a challenge, and a game that is an experience. The former can be a puzzle game just as well as a simulation of war, where the latter can be something engrossing enough to keep your ass glued to a seat and hands to controlling implements for long enough to finish the thing.
Otherwise, we'll keep having the games that require little else than to point and shoot for 5 minutes to solve a problem, simply because everyone will keep buying it. Rather than the games that keep your thoughts drifting back to it's intricacies and atmosphere because of it's sheer engrossing immersion.
Which are more expensive to make.
One one side of many we have gamers from 'ye golden age' complaining about new gamers,
some from the last age weaned on the PSX or PS2 era, and the PC crowd.
Regardless where you started, personally I started in the last category, with the early PCs like the Commodore and Atari, the arcades, and the Intellivision and 2600.
Games are still more complicated and involving than those days, hell even Tetris was considered state of the art in it's time.
Also, keep well in mind that many of the big names in games are in their 40s+ now as well, most others have been inspired by these earlier 'pioneers' to the industry.
The problem doesn't lie with the casual, the hardcore, or any other group people like to adhere themselves to, it lies with more than that.
The problem with most games of today is multifold, stemming from their audiences, to the market, and to what makes the most money...among other things.
Many of todays games are called 'quality' though that can be applied rather loosely in reality.
I notice many games are of 'a' quality, that being Production Quality.
they look good, sound good, and many play rather good (not all by far). Though it can be said they lack something, and for some, not. Some are cookie cutter, cut from a similar cloth to too many other games, simply swapping palettes and names, though very much the same game. Little is made to create a mythos to the game or make it stand out all it's own.
IE; same game, different visuals.
The others try to be unique, maybe better, but fall prey to trying to compete with the sales of the 'easier to make' games, leaving them a little less than the first conception led anyone to believe.
Now before I get carried away...
People buy these games.
They generate profit.
Thus, developers who have a more corporate standing tend to try and see how much they can save on time and expenses and still make the same fortune. Yet, people still buy the games, complain about them, and buy the next one regardless of earlier complaints.
There is no diversity to blame inherantly, it's all about the money.
Why spend 9 digits to make a 15 hour game that'll make back nearly the same, when you can make a 10 hour game spending 8 digits and get 9 in return.
Games today are easier, the arty label is thrown in often, usually when a game is little more than an interactive movie, mainly because this makes money.
The only thing changed are expectations. That games need to be more diffcult and expansive.
Don't get me wrong...I WANT a game that's longer, more challenging, and requires more than 5 braincells to understand. Just may not see it until someone makes it, or one of the like-minded makes one themselves. That being said, there's a difference between a game that is a challenge, and a game that is an experience. The former can be a puzzle game just as well as a simulation of war, where the latter can be something engrossing enough to keep your ass glued to a seat and hands to controlling implements for long enough to finish the thing.
Otherwise, we'll keep having the games that require little else than to point and shoot for 5 minutes to solve a problem, simply because everyone will keep buying it. Rather than the games that keep your thoughts drifting back to it's intricacies and atmosphere because of it's sheer engrossing immersion.
Which are more expensive to make.
Pretty much this. You do realise how gaming started out right? Simple games with little or no story line that could be picked up and put down whenever you felt like it. Pong had no real difficulty, Space Invaders had as much depth as a puddle and Super Mario had all the challenge of pressing a button to jump. And all the people pissed off with the Wii are just ignoring the fact that games are just that. Games.SirusTheMadDJ said:
The only real thing that made games challenging in the 80's and 90's were just the fact that the controls weren't that great. As in no matter how fast or hard you pressed a button you would always jump a split second after you wanted and so end up in a fire pit or something.
Of course there is, well I don't think hardcore is the right word I would rather use dedicated as the term for the so-called hardcore gamers. Casual gaming is real, it's those people that play games every now and then like people who play Guitar Hero/Rock Band and cheap minigames like Wii sports but are not really into playing serious games with lots of innovation and depth for the dedicated gamers like Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age.Heart of Darkness said:
Nope. I'm a casual gamer when I turn on my Xbox 360.
I'm more of a hardcore gamer when I turn on my Wii.
And damn do I hate using those terms.
I'm more of a hardcore gamer when I turn on my Wii.
And damn do I hate using those terms.
In fact I think I would describe myself as a casual gamer. Except for recently with the release of MW2, been playing a bit more than is usual for me.
Yes, they are. But indirectly. While I don't agree with everything said, it's pretty close.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZi8CceG2JI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZi8CceG2JI
