yeah_so_no said:
why so many people who consider themselves 'hardcore' gamers have so much vitriol for casual games. What do y'all think?
Now, personally I have a huge beef with nominations such as "hardcore" gamer and "casual gamer". People who name themselves "hardcore" gamers are usually people who take games way the fuck too seriously and people who name themselves "casual" games usually just clueless bandwagon-jumping berks who just wanna include themselves in the "gamer" segment, by force if necessary.
I think from the point where you play a game, you're a gamer, period.
That said, I do have a special pet hate for what's commonly known as "casual games". Backtracking for a second, I am totally in favor of making games more accessible to new players. I agree with the concept that the industry sort of grew up focused on feeding the same people who've been playing games their whole life, and tends to forget there's a market out there, a huge one, for people who never picked up a controller or the kind of people most of us current gamers jokingly label as "the guys that don't really know which side of the gun does the shooting".
And that's exactly why the Wii made a fortune this generation, it was approachable for a new player. It was accessible to people who weren't used to games, was flashy and gimmicky, and that was the selling point.
"So, Cali, why in the hell do you hate the Wii and "casual games"??"
Well, I'm part of those self-important tossers like yahtzee, or most staff I've seen from the escapist (-ATTENTION - NOT SAYING THEY SHARE THE REST OF MY VIEW, THANK YOU.), who consider gaming to be a form of art. I'm all in favor of making gaming, all of it, more user friendly and accessible, but most of what are the "casual games" of this era are nothing if not cheap, shallow and utterly stupid gimmicks. I'm sure they're accessible, but they're not accessible because someone in the lead designers' body carefully balanced a real, fully developed game, to be both accessible to new gamers and interesting to old ones. They just slapped some shiny crap together, made it interactive (often only partially) and tossed it on it's way. It's the Fisher Price of gaming.
Ultimately this comes down to the same-old "childish vs. child friendly" debate. A show like the Simpsons is "child friendly", it's a show anyone, of any age and mental capacity, can enjoy for the most part. It's a show a parent can watch with his child and it will cater to both. Something like your average saturday morning cartoon isn't "child-friendly", it's downright childish. Now, if you're wondering which is easier to do, your average morning cartoon is a lot easier and cheaper to produce. It's dumbed down half-baked often unfinished content, but it's enough for the simple and easily amused mind of a child. The Simpsons are a downright legendary series, who take considerable work and dedication to make.
And this is the "tie-in" to gaming. For the crushing majority of games this generation, they're not "casual-friendly", they're really just simple, and dumbed down, and gimmicky to appeal to simple tastes. This I hate, because I look at it as a cheapening of game as a format.
So that's the issue, I'm all for more accessible games for people who haven't been gaming all their lives, games that are intuitive to pick up even for someone who never played a game before, but seriously, I don't think they have to be a stupid and cheap piece of barely functional gimmicky crap.
/rant.
