Why is "Casual" bad?

[guntotingtomcat]

Casual gaming is what's preventing the bottom falling out the industry.
It's why nintendo is STILL doing better than Sony and Microsoft. It is also the ONLY way that new people are going to get introduced to games
WHICH is the only way games will ever be accepted as popular media worthy of artistic critique.

 

[Fishyash]

You must have enjoyed them mustn't you? THAT is the reason why people play games, because they enjoy them. There should be no other reason.

That is the reason a 5-year-old would give. You're sorta taking the entire argument that the question is based on out of it and are just responding to the title anyways.

I take this back tbh. I apologize since it definately wasn't your point. But what gets most people passionate about things is the fact that they enjoy them, and want to know more about them, or they find it absolutely necessary to their well being to learn about them. Most people who are passionate about games are people of the former, who play games primarily for enjoyment.

People like to waste time. You would be lying if you said you never did that. There is something everyone does that they are not devoted to that they enjoy every now and then. I don't want to spend ALL of my free time on gaming/music, maybe I could be better off, but I know for sure that tending to something you're in to will cause you to burn out if you do it too much when you're not enjoying it.

Wasting time is something I hate. I have something I love thus wasting time is time I could be partaking in that but am not, which is a huge shame. If you know how to handle yourself you never burn out. If you truly love your item of fascination you'll never get tired of it cause there will always be new sides of it to discover and improved ways of you to experience it.

Passions never get dull or monotonous, they're always more compelling with each new day, the more you know the more you want to know and it's always a growing model. That's how it is to have an actual passion, that's what people lack and that's what I'm getting from anyone who makes points about being bored by or needing a break from one's passion.

You never get bored, you never need a break, you're always in tune with it and are always deriving comparatively unsurpassed meaning from it.

Your general passion may never get tiring, but for some of them (depending on the context), it there is going to be some tediousness involved. For example (might be a bit pointless to read), I love playing piano. I had an interest since I was 3, and even though i'm still young (17), I have plans on taking my passion up as a career(potential pointless text over). However, I hate practicing scales (I have yet to see a single musician who enjoys this, but there may be some people), and learning music theory. I know both of these are very important for me to improve as a musician, so I do these anyway. If at times I did not take a break from practicing scales, or learning music theory, I would have probably discouraged myself. Obviously that doesn't make me casual, but it does mean that I cannot devote 100% of my free time to music because I would be put off by practicing scales and learning music theory. I don't like it, but I take it seriously enough to do it anyway (this is mainly due to the rewarding feel of being able to perfect your playing for the former, and to get it over with in the latter).

To clarify about not seeing anyone enjoying practicing scales, there are probably people who DO enjoy it, and there is also likely a way to make it more interesting to learn them in certain contexts.

I might be missing the point, but some elements of some passions can be dull and monotonus, and has the potential to discourage something from being taken too seriously and become 'casual'. In my opinion showing a small interest in something shouldn't really be a problem at all, you don't really lose anything from it, except a small amount of time that was probably not going to be spent usefully on your passion if you would have rather done that.

Where are you getting this from? Nobody is casual about everything. This thread is about casual gaming, so this is unrelated, unless you think 'casual gamers' are casual about everything, which is untrue.

It's the way of the times, too many people do lots of things without passion or deep love for them, just to blend in and pass the time, gaming is one of them. I think it's an undisciplined way of being that leads to meaninglessness when set next to having a driven and focused life.

I guess i'll agree to disagree on this, it just seems like a bit of an assumption more than anything else. While you may be right on this, I haven't seen this happening.

This is a very interesting discussion for me. I enjoy discussing things like this to be honest.

Also to finish this particular post (this is not directed at Dreiko), I really wonder...

What defines 'casual' in the context of gaming? Is it similar for everyone? Maybe there is a distinguishable difference between different people's definitions on casual?

 

[KEM10]

What you're missing here is the fact that minutia or experience is NOT what I'm going for here. I'm not being an elitist, branding people who don't have enough information or knowledge casuals. I'm just examining attitudes about it.

If you're genuinely passionate about something it doesn't MATTER how much actual knowledge you have about it, if you just have the drive and love for the medium that's enough to make you superior to people who just pass by, even if they happen to know more stuff about the item than you.

Being passionate is about deriving meaning in the highest form possible from something, not about being the best trivia pursuit winner on it or having every lunchbox and phone card of it out there.

It is a game, it says so in the name of the medium. So why can't it just be a game to some people? Casual happens in everything and you should cherish it because you could slowly work them up to a "stronger" attitude and have a gaming partner, or if they eventually give in you have a cheap system you can buy from them.

I guess it is like watching TV. I can enjoy my programing no mater what my neighbors watch, if they even watch. Your original post made it sound like if you didn't enjoy a program enough to make sure you were always at home to see it, then you shouldn't watch it on a whim as well. You mistook my trivial pursuit tactic for user knowledge instead of devotion, probably because of my lack of explanation and redundant examples (even though the more devoted you are the more you end up knowing it (but now I am just trying to defend my thought process).

I hope this makes more sense.

 

[joshuaayt]

Mostly casual games bother me only in that they tend to trivialise the media- demoting public perceptions of video games to "thing you waste time on until you are bored", a gameplay model which obviously does not encourage a compelling narrative or complexity of game mechanics.

But this is really the fault of marketing- over here, at least, we almost exclusively get the casual, kid-friendly games advertised. This has led to many frustrating conversations with my family, they convinced that my hobby is "childish". (And I should do something constructive, like play a sport, which apparently is more productive than gaming)

I personally don't hate casual gamers in and of themselves. They just wanna have fun, and I have no quarrel with them.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Casual gaming can be good, but most of the notable titles for it suck... IE FARMVILLE!

 

[Pyro Paul]

Because there are more then them then there are us hardcore gamers.

for every one of you that have 100% a final fantasy game, that Topped the score boards on an FPS, that made the Leader Boards of an RTS or achieved more then just 60% of the achievements of the game, there are litterally tens to hundreds of casual gamers.

Because of this, companies start to sway more towards Casual gaming instead of hardcore gaming. this leads to simpler, shorter, more shallow games. this change in focus leads to degredation in quality or even the complete disappearance of complete generas.

 

[octafish]

Because Bejeweled is better than most "core" games?

 

[SoulSalmon]

As has been said a lot in this thread already, it isn't that "casual games and gamers are EVIILLLLL D:" It's that companies have found out that they will probably make MORE money from making games that require WAY less effort and we'll no longer see titles with innovations and long stories, they'll be replaced by what we used to collectively label Shovelware.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

What you're missing here is the fact that minutia or experience is NOT what I'm going for here. I'm not being an elitist, branding people who don't have enough information or knowledge casuals. I'm just examining attitudes about it.

If you're genuinely passionate about something it doesn't MATTER how much actual knowledge you have about it, if you just have the drive and love for the medium that's enough to make you superior to people who just pass by, even if they happen to know more stuff about the item than you.

Being passionate is about deriving meaning in the highest form possible from something, not about being the best trivia pursuit winner on it or having every lunchbox and phone card of it out there.

It is a game, it says so in the name of the medium. So why can't it just be a game to some people? Casual happens in everything and you should cherish it because you could slowly work them up to a "stronger" attitude and have a gaming partner, or if they eventually give in you have a cheap system you can buy from them.

I guess it is like watching TV. I can enjoy my programing no mater what my neighbors watch, if they even watch. Your original post made it sound like if you didn't enjoy a program enough to make sure you were always at home to see it, then you shouldn't watch it on a whim as well. You mistook my trivial pursuit tactic for user knowledge instead of devotion, probably because of my lack of explanation and redundant examples (even though the more devoted you are the more you end up knowing it (but now I am just trying to defend my thought process).

I hope this makes more sense.

Well, that's one of the problems lol. If you've watched those extra credits shows they have here you'd see how "game" does not properly represent videogames as a name any more. I don't think treating games like toys is appropriate.



I didn't say people shouldn't watch tv at all, I just said they'd be happier if they watched what they truly love instead of watching many different things without any form of higher involvement.

True, with passions comes a kind of esoteric knowledge, that is not the defining feature of having a passion though and it is not something I would ever use to discriminate.

 

[Judgement101]

Who considers it bad? I play PopCap games and they are casual. Who deemed them to be "bad"?

 

[Chris646]

The reason we find casual to be bad is:
For the older gamers; The people who tormented them in High School for playing video games are themselves playing video games, which is cruelly hypocritical. Also, originality is being lost, and they no longer have as many unique games like Earthworm Jim or E.V.O.
For the younger gamers; They, for the most part, don't care.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Because they don't understand the DEVOTION needed to be a gamer!

Back in my day, you had to walk five miles to the nearest retail store, then when you finally play the game, you have to grind monsters for two hours if you don't want to fight a boss for two hours, and if you left a key hidden in a generic barrel a mile back, or didn't beat the game without dying, you'd be labeled a loser!

NOW WHERE'S MY OATMEAL CAB SNABBIT?!


OT: In all seriousness, I don't see why, I guess some people think that a game that isn't nintendo hard can't be fun.

I still remember the quest to get my hands on an imported American pokemon silver back in the day (back when i used to live in Greece, you've heard of European release dates, right...).

There was this school trip and some kids from another school were there and one of them had gold, I instantly befriended him as I was in shock and he told me of the place he got it from, I walked later that day about an hour, bought the last silver (it was packed with a guide, good thing I brought all of my money and not just how much it would cost to buy a normal GB game), then walked another hour back and proceeded to play it. I still have that cartridge btw.

 

[Erana]

Casual isn't bad, its the people like Zygna that make it a heinous, heartless money grab.
Casual gamers feed these people, earning the loathing of people who want the loving developers to be the ones to make millions.

Why is Zynga bad? Why are they any worse than any other company that makes a game and sells it to make a profit? Did Zynga kill your favorite pet because you wouldn't pay the ransom? Thing is about Zynga games is, now hold onto your hat here, you can play them for free. You don't have to invest a single penny if you don't want to. Sure you might have to pay for the cooler looking outfit if you want it. Or if you want to buy your way through a mission instead of earning it. And I guess a little known fact is you can earn the Zynga bucks ingame. Meaning eventually you can earn enough in game to buy an item that would cost you real money otherwise. Just because gamers want to pay them money for a game they enjoy playing they must be evil huh.

Zynga has a fanbase of how many millions? A fanbase they make happy by providing games to them. Isn't that the whole purpose of gaming no matter if it Farmville or COD? Aren't games supposed to make the people playing them happy? Or is that logic only applicable when it comes to AAA hardcore mainstream games?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.231405-Zynga-Seems-More-Sinister-Than-You-Might-Expect?page=1
Well, that, for example.

Zygna has bad business practices, cares about nothing but money, and sets a despicable standard that other developers are clamoring to follow.

Microtransactions aren't bad at all! Nor are casual games. Just look at, say, LoTRO or Popcap.

I dunno being on facebook and seeing games that are clear rip offs of Zynga games springing up almost daily it seems that Zynga is getting bashed soley because they are the big dog in the fight. Any new game that does innovate becomes cloned within days and put up there. Zynga releases Cityville. The Burbs pops up. Same game different graphics. And if there is no reason to innovate why should they? They are a company there to make money. If they have found a way without much innovation (just like any mainstream company) there is no incentive to do so.

Just to make it clear- I posted a sentiment I commonly hear, in response to the OP, which I interpreted as, "What is the mindset behind the negative generalization of casual games." I don't actually feel that strongly about casual games.

Still, this is exactly what irks people about many casual game developers.
There is nothing emotionally worthwhile to be found in Zynga's grand design, and they make a killing off of extorting the most base appeal to be found in video games.

Its the same reason people go nuts hating on Michael Bay. And I'm sorry, but between the lack of any artistic value in their products and the HUGE profits to compensate for any social backlash, I see absolutely no reason they need to be defended.

 

[squid5580]

Casual isn't bad, its the people like Zygna that make it a heinous, heartless money grab.
Casual gamers feed these people, earning the loathing of people who want the loving developers to be the ones to make millions.

Why is Zynga bad? Why are they any worse than any other company that makes a game and sells it to make a profit? Did Zynga kill your favorite pet because you wouldn't pay the ransom? Thing is about Zynga games is, now hold onto your hat here, you can play them for free. You don't have to invest a single penny if you don't want to. Sure you might have to pay for the cooler looking outfit if you want it. Or if you want to buy your way through a mission instead of earning it. And I guess a little known fact is you can earn the Zynga bucks ingame. Meaning eventually you can earn enough in game to buy an item that would cost you real money otherwise. Just because gamers want to pay them money for a game they enjoy playing they must be evil huh.

Zynga has a fanbase of how many millions? A fanbase they make happy by providing games to them. Isn't that the whole purpose of gaming no matter if it Farmville or COD? Aren't games supposed to make the people playing them happy? Or is that logic only applicable when it comes to AAA hardcore mainstream games?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.231405-Zynga-Seems-More-Sinister-Than-You-Might-Expect?page=1
Well, that, for example.

Zygna has bad business practices, cares about nothing but money, and sets a despicable standard that other developers are clamoring to follow.

Microtransactions aren't bad at all! Nor are casual games. Just look at, say, LoTRO or Popcap.

I dunno being on facebook and seeing games that are clear rip offs of Zynga games springing up almost daily it seems that Zynga is getting bashed soley because they are the big dog in the fight. Any new game that does innovate becomes cloned within days and put up there. Zynga releases Cityville. The Burbs pops up. Same game different graphics. And if there is no reason to innovate why should they? They are a company there to make money. If they have found a way without much innovation (just like any mainstream company) there is no incentive to do so.

Just to make it clear- I posted a sentiment I commonly hear, in response to the OP, which I interpreted as, "What is the mindset behind the negative generalization of casual games." I don't actually feel that strongly about casual games.

Still, this is exactly what irks people about many casual game developers.
There is nothing emotionally worthwhile to be found in Zynga's grand design, and they make a killing off of extorting the most base appeal to be found in video games.

Its the same reason people go nuts hating on Michael Bay. And I'm sorry, but between the lack of any artistic value in their products and the HUGE profits to compensate for any social backlash, I see absolutely no reason they need to be defended.

I can't believe I am about to say this. I can't believe you have put me into a position that I am about to defend Micheal Bay, the man who raped my beloved Optimus Prime.

It is alot bigger than just profits. There is very little "social backlash". Do you think Micheal is going to lose sleep tonight because I said he raped the Transformers? Do you think our opinion is so bloody important to them? I really hate to be the one to break it to you but it isn't. Here is what both Zynga and Micheal know. Millions of people have seen their movies/played their games. Millions will see/play the next. They are doing something right. They are entertaining said millions of people. Making them happy. A few 1000 on the internet may not be happy with them. And I am sure they are well aware they can't please anyone.

Now you claim there is nothing emotional in a Zynga game. My friend you could not be further from the truth. Sure there may not be some grand love story in Farmville (but believe it or not they did try to put one in CafeWorld) but that is besides the point. No there is an emotional investment just like I am sure people are emotionally invested in their Sims or Minecraft town (or whatever it is). Not because they are so pretty but because they have invested a little piece of themselves into their cafe or farm. They take a little patch of land or a little room and they build it into a thriving huge farm with animals and special trees. Or a big fancy restaurant with fancy stoves and cool counters and tables. Glittery wallpaper adorns the walls. Then they get to share that with friends and/or other players. While exploring their neighbors designs. Now tell me how is that so wrong? How is that devoid of emotion?

 

[Fuselage]

Who considers it bad? I play PopCap games and they are casual. Who deemed them to be "bad"?

A lot of so called "Hardcore Gamers".
The ones who would push Minecraft away and play rouge warrior because Minecraft has cutesy graphics and rouge warrior is full of manly men stuff.

 

[RatRace123]

I think it might be related to why there's a rip on the wave of so-called 'anti-intellectualism' lately. Let me break it down for you.

You don't see fine art being celebrated on the television. You don't see weird, Lynchian-inspired auteur films hitting mainstream cinema and scoring big at the box office. You don't see people recite Shakespeare and poetry by Miur on the nine o' clock news.

You see 'backwards' shows like Two and a Half Men and My Name is Earl. You see another sensationalist news story about something that probably didn't deserve to be reported on in the first place. You see films like The Expendables and The A-Team. One dimensional comedy shows appealing to stereotypes (the promiscuous male, the lovable rednecks, the trailer-trash ex-wife) and brainless action flicks. You see a story about an autistic kid who got labeled a cheater by microsoft(i read somewhere it had been reported on Fox news, i think that's the American news network), rather than the next great poem by our generation's young Tennyson or Keats.

Casual games versus 'core' games is, essentially, the same. We're losing our Wuthering Heights and our Charge of the Light Brigade for, dare i say, the video game equivalent of the Twilight franchise. As games become less about story, characterisation, artistic design and 'auteur-ism' they end up becoming noving more than mainstream drivel, degenrating into such games as Farmville. I think a lot of core gamers fear this, and so they defend their core games to the death in the hopes our Bioshocks will never be dumbed down into the likes of Kinect Adventures. Casual gaming, is, in essence, the 'anti-intellecutalism of the gaming industry'. Simple, derivative games aimed at no particular audience except for the ones that can pick up and play within the space of five minutes, as opposed to a 40-hour epic where you learn about characters and their struggles through careful interaction and dialogue.

'Casual is bad' is simply so because of the fear that it may change the industry - indefinitely. As companies see the far more lucrative markets of housewives, children and the elderly as opposed to the niche core market, they may shift their business model to cater primarily, and eventually, solely to that demographic, the core audience will feel betrayed, hurt and confused that they have lost something that primarily belonged to 'them' as a culture that only they identified with.

Damn, I was gonna say something similar to this, but not quite as eloquently.
This basically sums it up, casual games are easy to make, and they sell insanely well, and in terms of the artistry of the medium, they offer nothing.
It's probably not going to happen, but a small part of a lot of our brains is telling us that casual games are going to overtake the industry. So we feel we must fight and oppose them.

 

[Sovereignty]

We have issues with casual gamers because there seem to be more of them then us hardcore types.

This creates a situation where titles that the main core of gaming want aren't pursued as heavily by companies as the large cash cows are mainly from the casual gamers repertoire of games.

Plus. They are the reason for the Wii.

 

[boholikeu]

"Casual" isn't bad, and any person who thinks the casual element is hurting the industry is simply wrong. Making something more accessible does not always mean dumbing it down.

I think it might be related to why there's a rip on the wave of so-called 'anti-intellectualism' lately. Let me break it down for you.

You don't see fine art being celebrated on the television. You don't see weird, Lynchian-inspired auteur films hitting mainstream cinema and scoring big at the box office. You don't see people recite Shakespeare and poetry by Miur on the nine o' clock news.

You see 'backwards' shows like Two and a Half Men and My Name is Earl. You see another sensationalist news story about something that probably didn't deserve to be reported on in the first place. You see films like The Expendables and The A-Team. One dimensional comedy shows appealing to stereotypes (the promiscuous male, the lovable rednecks, the trailer-trash ex-wife) and brainless action flicks. You see a story about an autistic kid who got labeled a cheater by microsoft(i read somewhere it had been reported on Fox news, i think that's the American news network), rather than the next great poem by our generation's young Tennyson or Keats.

Casual games versus 'core' games is, essentially, the same. We're losing our Wuthering Heights and our Charge of the Light Brigade for, dare i say, the video game equivalent of the Twilight franchise. As games become less about story, characterisation, artistic design and 'auteur-ism' they end up becoming noving more than mainstream drivel, degenrating into such games as Farmville. I think a lot of core gamers fear this, and so they defend their core games to the death in the hopes our Bioshocks will never be dumbed down into the likes of Kinect Adventures. Casual gaming, is, in essence, the 'anti-intellecutalism of the gaming industry'. Simple, derivative games aimed at no particular audience except for the ones that can pick up and play within the space of five minutes, as opposed to a 40-hour epic where you learn about characters and their struggles through careful interaction and dialogue.

'Casual is bad' is simply so because of the fear that it may change the industry - indefinitely. As companies see the far more lucrative markets of housewives, children and the elderly as opposed to the niche core market, they may shift their business model to cater primarily, and eventually, solely to that demographic, the core audience will feel betrayed, hurt and confused that they have lost something that primarily belonged to 'them' as a culture that only they identified with.

You hit the nail on the head.

Very well said. I agree with most of your points.

You sir, have stated one of the most intellectual answers I have ever seen so far on the internet, thank you.

Unfortunately, Gralian's argument is flawed for one simple fact: hardcore titles aren't the video game equivalent of intellectual movies or novels. You don't see hardcore gamers defending the likes of games like The Path, Braid, or Flower. In fact, more often than not they label these games as "casual", too.

If anything, your typical hardcore game has much more in common with Twilight than it does with Wuthering Heights. The stories usually pander to our geeky side in the same way that Twilight gained popularity by exploiting the interests of teenage girls.

Damn, I was gonna say something similar to this, but not quite as eloquently.
This basically sums it up, casual games are easy to make, and they sell insanely well, and in terms of the artistry of the medium, they offer nothing.

They offer nothing except:

Better UI
Better in-game tutorials
Better difficulty curves

They also make developers second guess certain "traditional" game mechanics that are actually quite broken. Thanks to the casual influence, RPGs now rarely have random encounters or require level grinding to progress the game.