Call of Duty now Casual?

[Snowblindblitz]

The operative distinction here is art game versus hobby game.

It sounds like COD is a hobby game. Like a sports game, or a puzzle game. An art game has a story to tell, and the interface just makes the story more engrossing when done correctly. In other words it is complementary.

Art games should be casual. And hobby games should not be casual. Playing a game over and over is far from casual. It's a hobby.

An art game is like watching a movie. It should get its point across as quickly and efficiently as possible so you can move onto the the next one. Playing a game over and over is the equivalent of young kids watching the same movie over and over. Adults consume media. That's how it should be.

These distinctions need to become more evident. Right now we have a lot of games that are trying to be hybrids, and that really doesn't serve either need. If a game is a hybrid, I would call it a hobby game with some story. Like a porno with some story.

You don't re-watch or re-use media? Your version of art games sounds like snacks. Play it and go, which doesn't sound very art to me. An "artsy" game can be interpreted many ways.

Braid is apparently an "artsy" game, wrapped up in somewhat complex puzzles.

The Souls games are "artsy" games in their sparse and nihlistic story telling techniques, while also maintaining a robust gameplay including pvp elements.

Portal is artsy due to its blend of story and gameplay.

Bioshock is artsy due to its story.

The worse part? This is all opinion. There is someone who says all these are just a puzzle game, a trial and error game, another puzzle game, and a poor shooter.

Art doesn't always have a story either. A building can be a work of art, without telling a story. Games that pride on excellent gameplay are like buildings in my opinion, something you enjoy without story, you enjoy aesthetically and marvel in how a man-made structure can catch the imagination and soul of someone.

 

[thebakedpotato]

You are missing my point. My point is this: if publishers see repetitive crap sell ungodly sums, then they are more likely to skew in that direction. This means less opportunities for the truly brilliant stuff. Of course there is brilliance in the gaming market, even today. Barely.

I missed your point because it's under the assumption that all the gaming companies do this. And since we're not playing guitar hero like games and nothing else, I'd say that they don't.

But no, keep worrying about what other people play and do.

 

[DementedSheep]

Well generally I define causal and hardcore by the level of commitment not what game. You can certainly be a hardcore CoD fan who sinks tons of hours into CoD specifically or a casual gamer who games only a few hours a week and doesn't 'take it seriously' for lack of a better term but who still plays a wide variety of different games.
COD is a multiplier game so you can't even really use the difficult vs easy definition of harcore vs casual. I don't see why being popular makes something casual.

Also I wonder how many of them actually call themselves "hardcore gamer" or whether your just projecting that onto them. It like the fake gamer thing being applied to people talking about farmvile or minecraft because they like those games while never really identifying themselves a "gamer" in the first place.

They did not take anything away from you and they are supporting the industry as well when they buy. Its just that games you want aren't as popular and some companies are trying to follow in the coattails of others success and play it safe which always happens. Even when gaming wasn't as popular it still use to happen, different genres go through phases of being popular within the audience and get made more often though other types still get made. It was just smaller scale.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

If you take the wikipedia definition of casual games ("Casual games ... are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games. They require no long-term time commitment or special skills to play, and there are comparatively low production and distribution costs for the producer."), it's clear that CoD isn't casual.

you do know that you described what CoD is right? it has very simple rule, there is no long-term commitment or special skills to play (other than learning how to use a controller) and the production of CoD is extremely low especially since they have used the exact same game engine since the first game just modified for modern consoles. it is casual by the very definition you gave.

 

[Zetatrain]

It's a game able to be enjoyed by a bazillion people online without them needing to go through any type of practice. Of course it's casual lol.


Contrast this with like...an obscure 2D fighting game from Japan or something. If you go online and try to play without practicing for hours and hours you'll get destroyed by every single person. I don't mean lose, I mean constantly perfected without being able to do anything at all.


You can still be competitive at a casual game, just look at all those backgammon and dominos competitions. Doesn't mean the game's not casual, just that it can be played on a high level too.

But if a game can be played on a high level then that implies that the game does require some skill. So if we are using skill as an indicator of whether something is casual or hardcore then how do you (objectively) define the level of skill that divides these two labels without coming off as arbitrary?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's a game able to be enjoyed by a bazillion people online without them needing to go through any type of practice. Of course it's casual lol.


Contrast this with like...an obscure 2D fighting game from Japan or something. If you go online and try to play without practicing for hours and hours you'll get destroyed by every single person. I don't mean lose, I mean constantly perfected without being able to do anything at all.


You can still be competitive at a casual game, just look at all those backgammon and dominos competitions. Doesn't mean the game's not casual, just that it can be played on a high level too.

But if a game can be played on a high level then that implies that the game does require some skill. So if we are using skill as an indicator of whether something is casual or hardcore then how do you (objectively) define the level of skill that divides these two labels without coming off as arbitrary?

I would say that how likely the game is to actually make you want to be serious about it is what makes the difference here. If a game is infused with methods and modes that groom you into a competitive player (like the fighting games I mention), if you simply can't succeed at the game when you play it as intended (no cheats/power leveling/exploits) without devoting a lot of time to learning it, if the main source of enjoyment for the majority of the people who actually play the game comes from deeper meaning style things, the game is not ccasual.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Heh...

I wouldn't call it that. I think that a game with mechanics that allows for such disparity in skill-level is a game that is sufficiently deep to not be considered "casual".

Not that it matters.