On the Casual Game Hate
- Thread starter yeah_so_no
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i dislike the who casual gamer not because of the game but because of the companies themselves, they usually rip off the casual gamers with terrible minigame collections and in the case of nintendo ignore the hardcore gamers who want an FPS that doesn't suck on the wii. so really i hate the whole milking for profit aspect of the casual gamer.
This. I loved being regarded as a geek and an outcast. It made me unique. Gaming was my thing. I knew nobody else in my school or year group who played video games as much as I did. Then CoD4 and casual games happened and I was was made marketable.Scrythe said:
Also, I'm surprised nobody has shown this yet. It sums it up pretty well:
Phenomenal article. Thanks for pointing it out.
But, they're right. User Satisfaction is key in the entire industry
But, they're right. User Satisfaction is key in the entire industry
Are you kidding? If you defined it like that then the definition would be reversed. The non-gamer is the guy who owns Fallout 3, plays it for 20 hours then spends all his time on gaming forums turning every thread into a discussion, flamefest or unwanted recommendation for Fallout 3. The gamer is the gal who buys Tetris and plays it for hundreds of hours and becomes a secret Tetris grandmaster.Scrythe said:
Thanks for the links yeah_so_no, good reads.
Video games became popular off "casual games". Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, etc. Some estimate more played back then they people do today.
Yet despite how "casual" those arcade games were, so many played them in a "hardcore" way. Going for high scores, tournaments, contests, finding all the secrets in consoles and PC ports. Even going so far to make their own games on MSX or Apple II.
These days "hardcore" and "casual" really mean nothing. Just jargon to either better sell something from a company or to insult/praise a game by people.
You could still play Peggle, a "casual" game, in a hardcore manner by collecting everything and going for high scores. You can play Grand Theft Auto IV, a "hardcore" game, in a casual manner by running around and killing everything or creating crashes for a few moments and then leaving.
What's the real diffrence between them? What makes one "casual" and the other "hardcore"? Nothing, just people throwing terms arround with no real meaning.
Terms like gamer? A gamer is someone who plays games. That's it, it's rather simple. People like us who play games often or beyond the "play a little bit rarely", we're still gamers, just those who enjoy it more.
You don't randomly say "you aren't a real movie goer!" to someone who only sees a movie in theaters once a year while you do it every week. It's daft, and honestly makes you look rather foolish.
I play video games that are fun for me to play. I don't care if it's Tetris, Fallout 3, Earth Defense Force 2017, Picross/Nonograms, or anything else. "Hardcore", "casual", and other terms never enter into it for me. I just care about fun.
For someone who feel the need to say "hardcore" to somehow make themselves feel better about what they play, I pity them. There is something about gaming that bothers them and they are ashamed of it or refuse to deal with a problem, and it's a real shame.
For those who just use "casual" to insult others because they can, well then they might as well go back to the playground where someone can call them a poopy head. It's all about equal.
For anyone who says "not a real game/gamer" as an insult, most of what you say will be ignored.
Video games became popular off "casual games". Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, etc. Some estimate more played back then they people do today.
Yet despite how "casual" those arcade games were, so many played them in a "hardcore" way. Going for high scores, tournaments, contests, finding all the secrets in consoles and PC ports. Even going so far to make their own games on MSX or Apple II.
These days "hardcore" and "casual" really mean nothing. Just jargon to either better sell something from a company or to insult/praise a game by people.
You could still play Peggle, a "casual" game, in a hardcore manner by collecting everything and going for high scores. You can play Grand Theft Auto IV, a "hardcore" game, in a casual manner by running around and killing everything or creating crashes for a few moments and then leaving.
What's the real diffrence between them? What makes one "casual" and the other "hardcore"? Nothing, just people throwing terms arround with no real meaning.
Terms like gamer? A gamer is someone who plays games. That's it, it's rather simple. People like us who play games often or beyond the "play a little bit rarely", we're still gamers, just those who enjoy it more.
You don't randomly say "you aren't a real movie goer!" to someone who only sees a movie in theaters once a year while you do it every week. It's daft, and honestly makes you look rather foolish.
I play video games that are fun for me to play. I don't care if it's Tetris, Fallout 3, Earth Defense Force 2017, Picross/Nonograms, or anything else. "Hardcore", "casual", and other terms never enter into it for me. I just care about fun.
For someone who feel the need to say "hardcore" to somehow make themselves feel better about what they play, I pity them. There is something about gaming that bothers them and they are ashamed of it or refuse to deal with a problem, and it's a real shame.
For those who just use "casual" to insult others because they can, well then they might as well go back to the playground where someone can call them a poopy head. It's all about equal.
For anyone who says "not a real game/gamer" as an insult, most of what you say will be ignored.
That's what you say, and I probably won't change your opinion. But art is no label you can brand on something. You might see some things as art that I don't and vice versa. In my opinion, if a game doesn't make me think the slightest bit, like Fallout 3, it's not true art, it's just (maybe great) entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and spent a lot of time with it, but I do not see it as an art form.Caliostro said:
I said that the wrong way, sorry, I'm no native speaker. I meant to say that extremely little games have any artistic value.Caliostro said:
I guess EA can produce as many Dead Spaces, Army of Twos and Mirror's Edges as they can, they will never lose that bad reputation of being a soulless video games machine. I mean, come on. The last 2 years, they delivered more new franchises than anyone else did on the mainstream market. That's quite an accomplishment. Although those are likely to be raped into franchises... but oh well, at least a few new games.Caliostro said:
Gladion said:Also don't hate the Wii. It's not the console's fault so much shit is being developed for it. And games don't get ported on the Wii because the demographic was stupider. Since N64, it's been the way that Nintendo consoles get very little third party support - they make so many great first party games that many people owning a Nintendo console didn't/don't even consider getting third party games; so sales on them lack(ed) compared to the other systems'. Now it's the same, 'hardcore' gamers get the Nintendo first party games (and maybe some Wii-exclusives like House of the Dead or Scarface), and it's not like 80% of Wii owners were casual gamers - believe it or not.
The gaming industry also has been the fastest growing market in the world before all this. There are a lot of hardcore gamers (if you want to label yourself), you might underestimate the number of 'us'
I always try to see past a few flaws in the Wii's controls (not that I have actually experienced many in the games I play, but a lot of people whine about it, so I guess it does have a true core), because it's the first of its kind, or at least the first that got so popular. When did a completely new system ever work perfectly from the first day on? This might just be an excuse though.Caliostro said:
I don't know. I've played Zelda, Resident Evil 4, No more heroes, Wario Ware and Manhunt 2 on the Wii, everything worked very well. I would have just wished they had put in a security system for when the batteries run out of power.Caliostro said:
Oh come on, you're never too old for anything. Except for that hot... well nvm.Caliostro said:
Nah, if you didn't enjoy it any more, that's perfectly okay.I haven't played the game but I've never heard people complain about controls in Mario Galaxy. Also, whether you like the games or whether you think they're all the same wasn't what I was going for. I was trying to say that the games are just great, perfectly functional. If you can't enjoy them then it's just something that has to do with personal taste, not because the games were bad. Also you're being rather harsh, I think. The games they release aren't all the same, even the Zelda games differ, even though you always collect items, go through dungeons and save the same fuckin princess over and over again.Caliostro said:
Then there's stuff like Pikmin and Paper Mario, which are rather original.Okay, let's not. I'm just going to say: it fucking prints money, and I don't blame them - although I love my indie, non-commercial stuff.Caliostro said:
I don't think that this is the case. It's just what everybody thinks. I suppose a LOT of hardcore gamers have access to a Wii, even if they didn't buy it themselves. About graphical limitations: The Wii is more powerful than the original Xbox, so games that look prettier than Doom 3 really should not be a problem, and I think Doom 3, to this day, has aged pretty well. It's just that nobody fuckin tries.Caliostro said:
Again, many people misunderstood. I never heard SEGA say that they were going to make a "very mature game" in the sense of the game being really mature like, let's say, Silent Hill. As far as I'm concerned, the game itself knows that it's immature and just brainless and never takes itself seriously. As dumb as the game is, it's great at what it does.Caliostro said:
Oh yeah, you cannot blame companies for trying to make some cash out of their products. Nobody in the industry does it for loving us so much.
And I'm not going to answer your name-rant because obviously you can't be serious about judging a console by its name.
You can usually identify the hardcore of any industry by looking for the vocal minority. They are the people who post on message boards and usually stay more involved in the industry than most. A good example of hardcore that doesn't use videogames is the Magic TCG. They have a lot of people who will spend hundreds of dollars a year competing in tournaments for a lot of money, but those people only compose about 15% of sales. Most players spend maybe $50 a year on cards and just play with their friends. They are the casual audience for that industry.bernthalbob616 said:
Hardcore games are those marketed to the "gaming enthusiasts," the people who look at the numbers of a game before almost anything else. This includes things like HD resolution, frames-per-second, polygon count, etc. If a game isn't cutting edge specs-wise, it takes more effort to sell it to the hardcore.
A good way to identify a hardcore gamer is to see what they think of LoZ: Wind Waker. If they dismiss it purely on the grounds of the graphics, they are a hardcore gamer. Before people start yeling at me, just let me say that this really only applies to the graphics. If someone didn't like it because of all the sailing reqired, or some other reason that involves something besides specs, they are not necessarily a hardcore gamer.
The hardcore gamer has good reason to fear the industry will stop making games with challenging gameplay.
Games were more challenging 10 - 20 years ago than they are now.
The casual market is growing and publishers will want to publish games that sell more copies. The hardcore crowd may become ignored among the big gaming masses.
Games marketed at kids are good for all of us, because bringing new blood to the hobby keeps the hobby alive.
Casual games for teen and adult non-gamers are not good.
With casual players developers and publishers can ignore hardcore gamers and still make more money. This is assuming casual games will remain cheaper to develop than AA titles.
Games were more challenging 10 - 20 years ago than they are now.
The casual market is growing and publishers will want to publish games that sell more copies. The hardcore crowd may become ignored among the big gaming masses.
Games marketed at kids are good for all of us, because bringing new blood to the hobby keeps the hobby alive.
Casual games for teen and adult non-gamers are not good.
With casual players developers and publishers can ignore hardcore gamers and still make more money. This is assuming casual games will remain cheaper to develop than AA titles.
My main complaint with casual games is that their success influences other games. At least it seems that way to me. To me, a hardcore gamer is anyone who 1)enjoys a challeging game 2)will put forth the effort to practice to master a complex control scheme or set of rules for a game and 3)plays more than one type of game. If you fit those three then you are definitely a gamer, which means you look forward to new games and support the gaming industry by purchasing gaming magazines, merchandise maybe, and of course the games and periphials themseves.
People who can be described as casual buy a game every now and again and don't really look into what's coming or everything that's out 9 times out of 10. So when we find out that the new Zelda game we've been looking forward to has no new details on development but the same publisher is spending it's sweet time pumping out 20 titles that are basically pretty looking $50 flash games, or when you are playing a very unpolished game that you can tell needed more development time but they rushed out because people who don't have a real "feel" for what a good game plays like won't know any better, it feels like a slap in the face to us, the real gamers that have made this simple hobby a part of American culture and a multibillion dollar industry.
I have no problem with the industry evolving, but I think when I'm waiting for maybe three big releases a year that tend to be hit or miss and we get 50 or more "casual" games in the process, maybe I have a right to be a little pissed off.
People who can be described as casual buy a game every now and again and don't really look into what's coming or everything that's out 9 times out of 10. So when we find out that the new Zelda game we've been looking forward to has no new details on development but the same publisher is spending it's sweet time pumping out 20 titles that are basically pretty looking $50 flash games, or when you are playing a very unpolished game that you can tell needed more development time but they rushed out because people who don't have a real "feel" for what a good game plays like won't know any better, it feels like a slap in the face to us, the real gamers that have made this simple hobby a part of American culture and a multibillion dollar industry.
I have no problem with the industry evolving, but I think when I'm waiting for maybe three big releases a year that tend to be hit or miss and we get 50 or more "casual" games in the process, maybe I have a right to be a little pissed off.
When I mentioned Tetris and such, I didn't mean literally the games, I meant the type of games the non-gamer generally plays around with on the 'net. Think about it, how many Java and Flash based Tetris clones are there? Would you dedicate your life getting that super-mega highscore on a game you could hack in five minutes with CheatEngine?More Fun To Compute said:
The internet should have nothing to do with it. That Fallout 3 guy is just one of millions of douchebags polluting forums and imageboards with is narrow-minded opinion. The internet should never ever be taken seriously.
However, I do like your Tetris analogy. I'm inspired to make myself a t-shirt that says "Tetris Grandmaster".
I think that if you play games regularly at all then you are a gamer. If someone plays tennis once a month then they should be able to say that they are a tennis player.Scrythe said:
Maybe someone would have a favourite version of Tetris and not want to spend too much time with another version but I'm more interested in my score and performance in free indie games that I might only play for an hour than I am in a single player FPS.
I have taken offence to your comments and have eaten your dog as a rebuttal.Catchphrase said:
I'm going to have to disagree partially with you because if it were purely an issue of time, then things like Peggle would probably be considered core games. I know several people who play for about 15-20 hours a week, but they play games like the aforementioned peggle, Zuma, Bookworm, and other such games. They are quite good at those games, but you'll never see them playing anything close to an FPS of action game. They simply like the games they play and play them often.
I stand by what I said about the hardcore crowd being more vocal, as they are the people who care about the details. Not just the specs, but balance, continuity, etc. A hardcore gamer probably posts on message boards and emails the studios involed with their favorite game about what they did and din't like. They will beat the game at the highest difficulty and collect every upgrade because they can. They do speedruns and compete head-to-head against others to show their skill. being hardcore involes being involved beyond simply playing the game.
Playing Halo doesn't make you hardcore. Wanting to test your skills on the legendary difficulty just to say you beat it, writing to Bungie, and playing against others so that you can go up the leaderboards, though, means you are a core gamer. You may suck at Halo, but getting involved beyond simply playing the game is what defines a hardcore gamer. They usually end up spending more time playing games, but I don'tknow anyone who has said "I need to meet my quota of 25 hours this week" when it comes to playing games.