I think I discovered why "casual gamers" are frowned upon...

Recommended Videos

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
This might be old news to the rest of you, but I just realized why some gamers don't like "casual gamers" who only play Farmville, Candy Crush, or some occasional Lego Game. It's because the casual gamers aren't into the classics, or into gaming as a medium. They're the gaming equivalent of somebody who loves getting the latest mystery novel but isn't interested in reading the good old classics at all. I think that what bugs people is the way that casual gamers seem to like specific games but not consider gaming as a whole at all interesting, and how they'd rather play some half-decent iPhone game than one of the beloved old classics that's known to be a timeless masterpiece.

Am I on to something here?

Oh, and don't take this entry to mean that I approve of people having this attitude. We all have to start somewhere, and at any rate I'm far too busy being cross at anybody who doesn't like the exact same manga that I like for the exact same reasons that I do.
 

BathorysGraveland2

New member
Feb 9, 2013
1,387
0
0
From my impression, it's more about game developers changing things to cater to more casual players, and thus losing some of the things people originally loved. Elder Scrolls is a pretty good example of this. You often see a lot of people who love Morrowind or even the older games, yet are disappointed in the later ones that have all kinds of hand holding and simplification done in order to cater to that wider audience. Basically, take what people love and then change it around so it suits other people as well.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone hate on "casuals" because they don't like classics. The more rational reasons I've seen has always been about how it has affected the games themselves.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Sorta.

But it's more than that. There's fans out there who have invested so much of themselves into their gaming hobby that they feel sort of an ownership over it, and anyone who comes along with a lesser credence will be seen as unworthy of joining in.

Not that I know anyone who's that into games (or who regularly games at all), but I reckon it's the same for any hobby.
 

MeatMachine

Dr. Stan Gray
May 31, 2011
597
0
0
I find that the animosity that occurs from hardcore gamers towards casual gamers is usually when a game caters towards casual play rather than competitive play.

Competitive-style games are more rewarding towards players who perform well, while casual-style games often lend certain advantages towards inexperienced or less-skilled players.

Take Super Smash Bros. as an example. Nearly every "credible" tournament that entices competitive players sets rules to minimize the influence of chance - removing items from the match entirely, and minimizing stage hazards, wherein the only reason why one player would lose to another would be simply by getting outplayed. A more casual approach, of course, would grant every player equal access and random luck to weapons, hazards, and other factors that could turn the tide of the match without relying solely on outperforming their rival.

"Hardcore" gamers often snub that as being unfair, and usually rightly so - after all, if you are by far a better player than your enemy, but lose the match because a Golden Hammer spawned right on top of them... twice... [which has happened to me before...] then the results aren't a very good representation of what they deserve.

It's important not to dismiss either catagory as being "too serious" or "for plebs". Both offer different core experiences for different reasons, no different than watching your 5-year-old at a pee-wee hockey game can be any less fun than watching the World Cup.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
It's about our treehouse, and them trying to get in. It really doesn't matter if they appreciate the medium.

Edit: allow me to clarify. It doesn't matter, because we assume it of them. The same is true of "fake" gamer girls. The community has a default assumption that they are in fact fake and will work towards that assumption, whether by simply asserting it, coming up with ludicrous tests until someone fails, etc. etc. etc.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
To an extent that is quite true. Another problem is that developers are trying to appeal to somebody who will just play one or so games. Then the rabid fanbases are quick to yell at the players of the game being dipped into to create the homogenised game in their liked series. When Halo 4 deliberately changed its style in both singleplayer and multiplayer to be more like Call of Duty, I wasn't screaming at Call of Duty or the fanbase of people who will mostly just buy Call of Duty and nothing else. I was screaming at Halo 4's developers for being cowardly and homogenising the game to appeal to more people when the brand name alone was probably enough to draw in the seven odd million sales it had.

However, changing yourself to be like another series is not necessarily a bad thing.

Mario is one of the best selling series in the industry, yet when Rayman Origins begins mixing the original Rayman games with Mario's 2D Platformer style, nobody blinks an eye. In fact they praise the fuck out of it. Why? Because Rayman Origins was still good, really good. Are we now praising Mario for being the game that inspired Rayman Origins to be so good? No, we're judging Mario by the quality of whatever game we're talking about. This horrible attitude of insulting the player playing the game which a game you happen to like took "inspiration" from is frankly baffling when something like Rayman Origins exists.

It's only a bad thing to be a player of one or two games if that game wrecked your favourite franchise is what I'm saying here. What a horrible attitude.
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
It more has to do with casual gamers changing the gaming industry as a whole for a worse. Look at shooters now compared to back then for a big example. In games like Quake and Unreal Tournament getting good actually means something. It takes a long time to do, but the payoff is huge. You can join in any random server and people immediately recognize and fear you. They know they will have one hell of a match now. Arena shooters are the epitome of a shooter genre. But now because the majority of gamers don't want to be put in their place in the social hierarchy, CoD 4 and others were made. It's sad and pathetic how people just want to avoid paying their dues from those who have dedicated the time, work, and effort.

Honestly casual gamers should feel ashamed for being so lazy and entitled to thinking they deserve to win in online games without putting in the work and effort.
 

Zen Bard

Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Sep 16, 2012
704
0
0
BathorysGraveland2 said:
From my impression, it's more about game developers changing things to cater to more casual players, and thus losing some of the things people originally loved. Elder Scrolls is a pretty good example of this. You often see a lot of people who love Morrowind or even the older games, yet are disappointed in the later ones that have all kinds of hand holding and simplification done in order to cater to that wider audience. Basically, take what people love and then change it around so it suits other people as well.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone hate on "casuals" because they don't like classics. The more rational reasons I've seen has always been about how it has affected the games themselves.
Yup. I think you nailed it. "Casuals" are perceived as the reason games are being "dumbed down". So-called "serious" gamers (and I'll count myself among them) see the games we once loved as thoughtful interesting challenges that required some skill and a modicum of thought reduced to frantic exercises in button-mashing.

I understand the industry's need to grow the market or broaden its audience, though. Unfortunately, that's just the price of progress.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
It's about our treehouse, and them trying to get in. It really doesn't matter if they appreciate the medium.

Edit: allow me to clarify. It doesn't matter, because we assume it of them. The same is true of "fake" gamer girls. The community has a default assumption that they are in fact fake and will work towards that assumption, whether by simply asserting it, coming up with ludicrous tests until someone fails, etc. etc. etc.


It's because we need to feel like we're part of some exclusive club and we're somehow better or different than others.

And them people trying to get all up in our treehouse. Can they not read the sign? It clearly says `No CasUAlz All0wd`!

I dunno, what kind of buzzkill goes around being mad at casual gamers? Seems like a waste of energy.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
The problem with casuals is there seems to be more of them than real gamers.

So that means more and more games will be made for the casuals, which are of very little or no interest to real gamers which in our eyes is ruining the entire industry. And rightly so.

Think of any adult hobby or sport that you like, and think about it being dumbed down and designed for children and you'll have an idea of what it is like. This leaves you the real fan left with some watered down flimsy excuse of something you enjoyed.


You like racing? Well too bad, now all the cars are replaced by children's peddle cars and everyone gets a trophy.

Like Football? Well now it's touch tackle and the field is 25yds long and only 4 people per team.

Like your Game of Thrones TV show or books? Well, no more violence, murder, nudity or politics. Now it's a segment of sesame street.


That's basically it.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Phasmal said:


It's because we need to feel like we're part of some exclusive club and we're somehow better or different than others.

And them people trying to get all up in our treehouse. Can they not read the sign? It clearly says `No CasUAlz All0wd`!

I dunno, what kind of buzzkill goes around being mad at casual gamers? Seems like a waste of energy.
It's even more annoying because it's such an amorphous term. You might as well say "the enemy," because it doesn't dictate anything useful. For some people, it's just iphone games. For some, it includes Nintendo (The same way in previous generations they were "kiddie"). For some, Madden and Call of Duty apply. For some...I don't know. There's like 500 definitions and it's all "games I don't personally like."

One could argue that I'm a casual gamer when I play CoD, especially since I only play it socially. I literally play it to play with friends, and I don't care about KDR, headshots, wins, camos, etc. At the same time, I fit largely into the steoretype of what one tends to consider a real gamer--I started playing in the 80s, I play core titles, I cut my teeth on Nintendo during the "greatest generations," etc.

And, of course, beyond the intellectual exercise of trying to figure out what "casual" means, I don't really care. I enjoy Rock Band and have several games on my Android.

And since I mentioned Rock Band, this seems like a very fitting comic when we're talking about hating casuals:

http://xkcd.com/359/

(I'd embed the image, but I can't right-click).

I could honestly picture the same thing except "playing so-and-so doesn't make you a real gamer."
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Queen Michael said:
This might be old news to the rest of you, but I just realized why some gamers don't like "casual gamers" who only play Farmville, Candy Crush, or some occasional Lego Game. It's because the casual gamers aren't into the classics, or into gaming as a medium. They're the gaming equivalent of somebody who loves getting the latest mystery novel but isn't interested in reading the good old classics at all. I think that what bugs people is the way that casual gamers seem to like specific games but not consider gaming as a whole at all interesting, and how they'd rather play some half-decent iPhone game than one of the beloved old classics that's known to be a timeless masterpiece.

Am I on to something here?

Oh, and don't take this entry to mean that I approve of people having this attitude. We all have to start somewhere, and at any rate I'm far too busy being cross at anybody who doesn't like the exact same manga that I like for the exact same reasons that I do.
In a way, but then there are the people that only play a certain kind of game. What is the difference between only playing Lego games, and only playing Call of Duty or Street Fighter 4, even on a professional level? Because I am pretty sure I can beat Daigo in a FIFA match, but that doesn't make me more of a "hardcore gamer" than him.

Then there are the graphics buff on PC, that won't touch anything with less than 1920x1080 and ultra detailed graphics, which means they have no interest in any game developed more than 10 years ago. Would you call them casuals because they can't stand the graphics of Super Mario?
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
EA made Dungeon Keeper mobile because of casual gamers.

It's not their fault, they didn't want Dungeon Keeper mobile. But it's arguably because of their new-found interest in games that it happened.

Some gamers are so hurt by examples such as this that they can't see that the casual gamers didn't destroy their favorite classic. Publishers did. For money.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Sorta.

But it's more than that. There's fans out there who have invested so much of themselves into their gaming hobby that they feel sort of an ownership over it, and anyone who comes along with a lesser credence will be seen as unworthy of joining in.

Not that I know anyone who's that into games (or who regularly games at all), but I reckon it's the same for any hobby.
That. The investment is severe in some cases, and not seeing that investment be recognized can be taken as a very personal blow, by some.

Take XCOM: Enemy Unknown, for instance. The remake simplifies several mechanics, but the game still is gripping and utterly engaging. It's still unforgiving and suitably complex. You'll still have anxiety attacks at the thought of choosing to build another Laboratory over assembling another Carapace Armor, because you'll have stuck one of your favorite newbies in low-tier gear for a few turns longer.

Unfortunately, a lot of people raged about the core mechanics' changes, on the Steam forum. Some people grew up with fifteen-men Skyrangers and Action Points and were so pissed off by the fact that Firaxis didn't maintain these mechanics that they disavowed the remake entirely, calling it "casual".

Having played Candy Crush, I'd have to say it's comparable to a Mario game. At first, you're stuck with the saccharine themes and easy-peasy levels. Of course, that's going to look casual to you; especially if you happen to come from a triple-A background. Then, things start to ramp up. You really have to work that brain to get those three-star ratings, and you have so few moves to use that everything needs to be premeditated and planned out. I guarantee there's a point where I felt like I was playing a round of high-stakes professional-grade chess.

And, well? That's not terribly casual, is it?

The casual gamer is someone who's in it purely for the entertainment, and not the challenge. He's the guy who hands you the controller when things get too tight, and who's never really dug into a specific genre or franchise. Hardcore types tend to react as though that were bad, but it's not. Not everyone considers that being stumped against something that's supposed to fill your leisure hours is something that's enjoyable. That's why I've never minded that some games could be played through with your eyes closed, while others actually demand careful attention. The so-called Gamer Cred doesn't require anyone to push through Dark Souls or The Witcher. Anyone who insists on telling me that I'm not a gamer because I've never played one game or another isn't worthy of my consideration, honestly.

I want a challenge? I boot up XCOM. I want to kill time or just vent some stress out from my system? I'll boot up The Sims 3 and kill me some virtual people, or get a dopamine rush out of looking at fake persons getting job promotions or tearing up at the sight of a newly-begun pregnancy. Or I'll boot up Skyrim and have another round of fake people telling me just how awesome or fearsome I am.

A casual is someone who gets the same rushes out of games who simply happen to be less complex. There's nothing wrong with that.
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
EA made Dungeon Keeper mobile because of casual gamers.

It's not their fault, they didn't want Dungeon Keeper mobile. But it's arguably because of their new-found interest in games that it happened.

Some gamers are so hurt by examples such as this that they can't see that the casual gamers didn't destroy their favorite classic. Publishers did. For money.
The main problem with Dungeon Keeper Mobile isn't the fact that it has microtransactions, it's the fact that they charged about a thousand times too much:

The game could still have been okay if the cost had been reduced the point where ordinary people could afford to play it the way we played the old Dungeon Keepers. But your digging options are (1) wait far too long or (2) pay far too much. Not even casuals would touch this game.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
Artaneius said:
It more has to do with casual gamers changing the gaming industry as a whole for a worse. Look at shooters now compared to back then for a big example. In games like Quake and Unreal Tournament getting good actually means something. It takes a long time to do, but the payoff is huge. You can join in any random server and people immediately recognize and fear you. They know they will have one hell of a match now. Arena shooters are the epitome of a shooter genre. But now because the majority of gamers don't want to be put in their place in the social hierarchy, CoD 4 and others were made. It's sad and pathetic how people just want to avoid paying their dues from those who have dedicated the time, work, and effort.

Honestly casual gamers should feel ashamed for being so lazy and entitled to thinking they deserve to win in online games without putting in the work and effort.
Work and effort? Hey dude, you're playing a video game. Not joining the armed forces. Get over it. You guys just call it work because you don't want to feel like you've wasted your time.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
I think the notion of gamers having this "special unique club" that they want to keep exclusive is the exact wrong reason why antipathy is existent. At least so for my own view.


I want everyone to consider games super duper awesome. I want everyone to be hardcore. I want everyone to be in the "club"! The offense comes when people act as though they do NOT deem gaming as awesome. When they reject being hardcore and gaming as more than a 5 minute time killer during a commute. People who reject the life-changing awesomeness that can be had in games basically inherently reject the life choices of a bunch of people who do indeed deem games as important.

People don't want to keep casuals out, they want casuals to see the light of awesomeness existent in games and accept that, yes, gaming is good enough as a main source of fun for ones life. That yes, it IS meaningful to just play games for fun as the core part of your fun activities. We don't want to keep people out of the club, we want people to start seeing why the club is significant and join up!

Then, to add the cherry on top of the insult cupcake, they try to hijack what gaming is, paint themselves as "normal" and other-ize the people whom they deem as wasting too much time on games. They start demanding that they be the main audience and the non-invested attitude be considered the normal attitude.

No! It is not the normal attitude to not give two fucks if you play a game or watch a movie tonight. This lack of passion and devotion and love and, yes, casual approach to life itself is insulting. It's a waste. A pity and a waste.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Some people frown upon casuals because some people need to feel superior to others. It's like when people use the term "PC master race" in a non-ironic way.

Before I get a bunch of comments; If you don't fall into that category then I'm not talking about you.