Casual gamers are not the enemy.

[Condiments]

I think the ever-growing sentiment that "casuals are ruining the industry" needs to be addressed. I think this attitude has come more to the forefront due to massive success of the casual industry this generation, and the trends we've been seeing in our games. These include, lower difficulty, streamlined mechanics, less depth, low innovation, multiplayer prevalence and less genre diversity. Its natural to place the blame upon those "new" gamers considering many of these trends cater to their tastes. I, however, would like to point out that the same argument has used multiple times in the past, possibly even against you. It might give you some perspective that you were viewed equally as bad casual gamers today to older gamers, and I don't expect this line of reasoning to die out anytime soon.

However the fallacy of the argument doesn't rule out the fact that gaming truly IS changing. Its just that we can't make foolish assumptions and lay the current generation woes on "casual gamers". The truth I believe is much more complex. The trends I mentioned above might be a result of new gamers entering the fold with different expectations, but I think we're all to blame for the overall direction of the industry. The rapid march of technology, and our general expectation of what "production" values should be have played a large part of why games are what are they are these days.

I think simply put, the AAA industry can not support individual niches anymore. Its why we've seen a general "pooling" of genres(SHOOTERS AND RPG MECHANICS EVERYWHERE) and lower difficulty to appease the largest audience possible. Tailor your specific game to much, say like an epic turn based RPG or turn based strategy(like Temple of elemental evil or Xcom), and you're not going to garner the sales needed for success. Its why we see multiplayer being attached to what would normally be singleplayer games. Developers/publishers care about the perception of their product to the overall public(singleplayer/multiplayer alike), that they would include put together a haphazard multiplayer mode that doesn't even fit with the game. Why? Because they can't afford not to.

I think this is why I'm increasingly wary of this this next generation. I can't imagine the industry when production costs only will FURTHER increase from their current state, making it much harder to profit. This all ties to our expectation of production values should be. Its on us, bros, not them(the casuals). As long as we obsess over sheer graphic quality(no including art direction), genres like turn based strategy will be viewed as "non-contemporary" to developers(poor Xcom).

So what are your thoughts on this? What do you are the root causes for the "casualization" of the industry? Sorry for the long post. Kind of went on a ramble there.

 

[Boxer.H1x]

I just see casual gaming as a gateway to leading people into bigger, more heavily-backed games.

At the absolute worst, people only play Facebook games so I have something in common with others. There will always be a company ready to make the next ground-breaking game, since there will always be a market for it.

Hell, maybe this casual gaming stuff will actually start making us look good at some point.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

Angry Birds is the gateway game.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

i sorta disagree.

people who love casual games tend to beat down on artsy titles for being unfun(CoD people are casual). infamous debates on wii sports vs LIMBO have been the heated topic of many afternoons for me.

similarly casual readers love twilight, but beat down on Wuthering heights because its artsy (and somewhat dated).

i understand that theyre gateways into the more complex stuff, but i think its rare to see the casual market move up. Because casual titles encourage more casual titles, people who read Twilight are probably going to go read more Tween vampire romance(same deal with casual gamers(and yes its a genre now)).

in my experience forcing people into more complex things is the only way, its rare people will jar themselves out of complacency( i myself only read Wuthering heights because i had no choice).

but i think a bigger problem is all this "ruining the industry" spin, that and firing Australian devs.

 

[Condiments]

i sorta disagree.

people who love casual games tend to beat down on artsy titles for being unfun(CoD people are casual). infamous debates on wii sports vs LIMBO have been the heated topic of many afternoons for me.

similarly casual readers love twilight, but beat down on Wuthering heights because its artsy (and somewhat dated).

i understand that theyre gateways into the more complex stuff, but i think its rare to see the casual market move up. Because casual titles encourage more casual titles, people who read Twilight are probably going to go read more Tween vampire romance(same deal with casual gamers(and yes its a genre now)).

in my experience forcing people into more complex things is the only way, its rare people will jar themselves out of complacency( i myself only read Wuthering heights because i had no choice).

but i think a bigger problem is all this "ruining the industry" spin, that and firing Australian devs.

See, my argument was never about how the casuals overall attitude towards certain types of games, but that their existence hasn't necessarily caused the mainstream trends. Book readers, movie goers, and videogamers at large aren't going to have the most discerning of tastes, and this is a well known fact(they don't call them "unwashed mass" for nothing).

My argument centers on our OWN crippling flaw that is preventing using from seeing the core games we want. That is our unrealistic expectations when it comes to production values. The more we push on this front the more developers are going to have to stretch their games thin(in terms of mechanics) in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. A perfect example would be the expectation of full voice acting in all of our games, even our longer more complex RPGs. This expectation actually has a dramatic effect on gameplay options by the reduction of npc/dialogue due to exorbitant voice acting costs. As costs increase, the ability for AAA developers to produce games for individual niches becomes nonexistent. Hence the hodgepodge of gameplay genres in modern games.

We all too often project flaws onto others because we're not willing to look at whats wrong with our own community.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Casual gamers ate my parents.

Otherwise, I can't see why they are such a problem, really.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Casual gamers ate my parents.

Otherwise, I can't see why they are such a problem, really.

They are a problem because they keep buying crap like COD by the trillions, so other devs see how much $$$ it makes and try to cater to that audience now.

Why do you think everything's turning into a damn FPS or action game now ?

First Fallout and now X-Com. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk !!

Oh, I understand that. But however many games do go that way, there are still plenty of games that do not.

Mind you, I don't see the logic in taking something that was popular due to not being a FPS, and then making it a FPS.

On the other hand, it works for TV shows, people are forever bringing old shows back, but changing everything about them but the name, and watching the stupid monkeys think it's wonderful anyway.

 

[Condiments]

Casual gamers ate my parents.

Otherwise, I can't see why they are such a problem, really.

They are a problem because they keep buying crap like COD by the trillions, so other devs see how much $$$ it makes and try to cater to that audience now.

Why do you think everything's turning into a damn FPS or action game now ?

First Fallout and now X-Com. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk !!

And its true, but like I stated before I think it speaks to a larger problem with the industry than just casual gamers.

The real question is can games like Fallout 1,2 and Xcom be replicated in this day and age with modern production values without compromising quality? Its difficult to say, but its hard to contradict the question when nearly all long time core developers started changing their games dramatically when making current generation games. Why? They can't afford to make the same deep mechanics anymore. Presentation and "CINEMATIC IMMERSHUN" has trumped quality.

 

[Condiments]

What exactly are these modern production values ? The newest graphics and full voice acting ? I think these are 2 of the main culprits.

They need to lower the costs of making these games so they don't feel the need to appeal to everyone and they can go back to focusing on the niche markets.

Yeah that was my main point actually. I think the industry needs to get to the point where there is enough flexibility for developers to adjust production values depending on the ambition of the project. We're too quick as a community to jump on games that don't look like they have "AWESUME CINEMATIC ACTSHUN".

Hell, everyone heralds Demon's souls as an example of great core games this generation, but before it released I remember it receiving heavy criticism for its "stiff animations" and "bad graphics". Having played an imported copy, I argued with people saying their assumptions were baseless. When did quality become associated with production values?

 

[b3nn3tt]

I don't think anyone is necessarily 'to blame' for anything. With the improvements in technology of this generation over the last, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the technical qualities of games would increase. This has led to an increase in the costs associated with making games, which means that companies have to make more money in order to make a profit on games. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense to appeal to the widest possible market, as that is how they will make the most money.

But it's not like niche games don't still exist. There are plenty of games that fall outside the category of 'realistic FPS', you just have to look for them. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the industry at the moment, as long as games are being made that I enjoy, I'm happy, and the same should hold true for anyone. If you don't like the look of the latest CoD game, just don;t buy it; instead, go out and find something that does appeal to you, because I guarantee that you'll be able to find something.

Further, I have absolutely no problem with 'casual' gamers. So people exist that like different games, so what? If they somehow influence developers to change a game into something you don't like, just don't play it. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Krantos]

Reason for broadening of the industry? Cost to produce games. You can't make AAA niche games anymore and make money. The only way to get a good niche game these days is from the middle market.

Sadly, there aren't many middle market developers these days. You have a lot of AAA studios and A MILLION indie studios, but there are very few who fall in the middle.

Stardock is one, but they pretty much just do strategy titles, and their last game (War of Magic) was literally used as an example at game design fails at a conference (Stardock gave the talk, btw).

 

[Bostur]

As more and more developers starts to mainstream their games, it's going to be more and more crowded in that market. Hopefully some will start realizing that the lack of competition in the niches can prove beneficial.

I'd like to see more of a middle market as well. Hopefully some of the indy developers and AAA developers may end up there in the future.

AAA developers can not support niche games if the budgets keep getting bigger. But maybe they start realizing that titles on smaller budgets can be wortwhile as well.

 

[tahrey]

I find this whole casual vs hardcore argument ludicrous and somewhat amusing... as if there's a huge and unbridgable divide between the two groups.

I find myself limited to dipping into games casually of late simply because of lack of time and cash (a PSN subscription is not on the cards when I'm currently unsure of whether I can meet the mortgage repayments). The modern interpretation of "hardcore" gaming is a definite lifestyle, a style that I cannot find the time to commit to inamongst all the other things that have to be dealt with in day to day life. I have at least sampled hardcoreness before. I could do again, if I could manage it, but it's something I've specifically stayed away from. If I haven't time to put my household paperwork in order, I haven't time for a whole evening of Halo. I downloaded Portal a couple days ago. That was probably a mistake, as I played it until I fell asleep afterwards, when really I should have been trying to hammer my car's smashed-up bumper back into a position where it isn't fouling the wheel. God only knows what would have happened if I had enough free disk space to put Team Fortress on as well. Or enough money to buy a 360. Occasionally being sucked into Gran Turismo on the PS2 is bad enough.

And most of my early gaming experience - and that of almost all my peers, I would assume - was an almost wholly casual one anyway. What else would you call Mario, Sonic, Dizzy, and all the rest of the vast majority of 8- and 16-bit titles, which were often either arcade ports with the "coin insert" switch mapped to a function key, or heavily inspired by them?

A long slog was getting to the end of Streets of Rage or the dragon in Gauntlet II (a task which made our Atari overheat and go a bit weird), or doing an entire race season in MonacoGP. Dungeon Master, Captive, Mega lo Mania, which had save points fer cryin' out loud, were considered serious investments of time, even though with the time-filter of youth removed, we could probably spin through them in an evening, and certainly no longer than it takes to drill through Portal; even the more complicated combat flight sim missions seemed a bit drawn out, but they probably took a half hour with judicious use of the "accelerate time" function. Elite, Civilisation, Final Fantasy, all those kind of timesinks that wouldn't be considered unusual now, were viewed as epics. God only knows what we'd have made of Minecraft (next to, e.g., Castle Master, or even the Mercenary series)... or Farmville, which takes Harvest Moon but makes it far more involving... and never-ending. Even with the rise of the FPS, time was measured in that of the one-round Deathmatch. Or, about five minutes. The target time for a typical Doom level was 2 1/2 minutes, and you could blitz many of them in 30 seconds on a speed run.

And I tell you what, having scraped through the final round of the first episode of Angry Birds, I'm not downloading any of the others. Casual? Like hell it is. It's challenging, incredibly addictive, requires skill, experience and concentration in order to do well, and eats up a huge amount of time.

Almost everyone's been a "casual" at some point, and the very industry itself was built on those foundations. I can't see it being an enemy. Hell, if hardcore gaming is defined by never-ending CoD / Gears / Halo clones, then it might well be the saviour, because I have single-DSDD-floppy pirate compilations (almost all "casual" type games) for my ST with more variety and interest, time-eating potential and likelihood of turning one into a hardcore fanatic (...simply a hardcore player of, say, Pac-Mania) than that segment of the market.

 

[Scow2]

Casual gamers ate my parents.

Otherwise, I can't see why they are such a problem, really.

They are a problem because they keep buying crap like COD by the trillions, so other devs see how much $$$ it makes and try to cater to that audience now.

Why do you think everything's turning into a damn FPS or action game now ?

First Fallout and now X-Com. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk !!

I agree that X-Com's genre-shift is a mistake caused by the developers getting the wrong message from the CoD series, Halo, and Gears of War, but they apparently miss all the other FPS games that fall by the wayside (Currently, Fracture stands out, and a whole rack of unmemorable, possibly-interesting-but-too-similar-and-mediocre-to-each-other FPS games at my local second-hand game store fail to stand out.)

There are ways to adapt the the evolution of gaming that don't involve completely jumping Genre.

An aside: WarHammer 40000: Space Marine is not "A Strategy-turned-FPS" game, because the Strategy game it's based on is still thriving. It's just a spinoff game that allows players to experience the WH40k universe from a different perspective than the standard. Similarly, "Halo Wars" wasn't a jump from FPS to Strategy on the Halo franchise: it's just a new-genre spinoff while the main series remains the focus.

So... Rebooting a franchise as a completely different genre = bad idea. Introducing the franchise in a new genre = good idea.

However, I have to disagree about your take on Fallout 3: It was an Open-world RPG first and foremost. When Black Isle went down, the franchise sold to another developer capable of making good Open-world RPGs. They just adapted the gameplay format from the Isometric Turn-based franchise Black Isle was proficient with to the First-person Real-Time format Bethesda was proficient with. However, I don't think anyone really played Fallout for the game engine or control scheme as much as the open world, post-apocalyptic setting, and multiple supported playstyles. For the most part, Bethesda kept all that. Or at least made a readily-apparent attempt to, even if some parts of the IP ended up getting lost in the transition between game studios and staff.

The difference between Fallout and X-Com is that X-Com is jettisoning a lot of what made the original game notable: Nobody really gives a damn about yet another space-opera setting, characters, races, fictional energy source, or story. Instead, the strength of that game was the blend of global diplomacy and strategy. Instead of choosing to keep the strengths of the series, updating and streamlining the mechanics appropriately, they've gone and made it "Generic Sci-Fi Shooter #XXX"

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I
And most of my early gaming experience - and that of almost all my peers, I would assume - was an almost wholly casual one anyway. What else would you call Mario, Sonic, Dizzy, and all the rest of the vast majority of 8- and 16-bit titles, which were often either arcade ports with the "coin insert" switch mapped to a function key, or heavily inspired by them?

And I tell you what, having scraped through the final round of the first episode of Angry Birds, I'm not downloading any of the others. Casual? Like hell it is. It's challenging, incredibly addictive, requires skill, experience and concentration in order to do well, and eats up a huge amount of time.

So all 16 bit games are casual but Angry Birds isn't?

I agree that the whole casual/hardcore thing is a false dichotomy (like how a puzzle game will usually be called casual just because of its genre) but that doesn't make old games the same as the minigames of today, you can credit feed and button mash through Streets of Rage, Street Fighter 2 and Dodonpachi but that doesn't mean there isn't an actual layer of depth and competetiveity above that which goes far beyond any original wii/ios game I can think of.

Where are the pro players of Canabalt, Angry Birds ect.?