Why is "Casual" bad?

[boholikeu]

Edit: Oops double post. I'm sorry

 

[Chibz]

That's not what is meant by casual. Casual meaning more like Peggle, Bejeweled, and Farmville. Games that are played by millions of people casually and cost like $5.

I also deeply loath peggle/bejeweled and farmville. Don't see why people put money into them.

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.

Excuse me, good sir, but where do we retro gamers fit into your ... nifty little theory? Retro games don't tend to have very complicated stories, but many of us play them just as "hardcore" as non-retro gamers play their games of choice.

 

[RatRace123]

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.

Wait, what games did that?
(That's not a sarcastic or snide comment, either. I get the feeling there are different definitions for "casual game".)

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Because casual games suck, only PC gamers should have the right to play shooters, The Wii is for mums, COD is killing gaming, Halo is over-rated, elitsm is great and sarcasm is often mis-read on the web.

 

[boholikeu]

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.

Wait, what games did that?
(That's not a sarcastic or snide comment, either. I get the feeling there are different definitions for "casual game".)

There wasn't one specific game that did that. It happened over time due to the casual influence on the industry. People that are quick to deride the "dumbing down" of games often forget that there is another side to that coin as well.

Edit:

In other words, games like Farmville aren't bad because they are "casual". Casual simply means easy to understand or accessible. Games like Farmville are bad because they are based on bad game mechanics (in Farmville's case: grinding and bugging your friends to help you with your farm).

 

[end_boss]

I think the problem is that people are trying to turn "casual games" into a genre of game, focusing mainly on Farmville, Bejewelled, etc. I'm a casual gamer, but I've been gaming for over two decades, playing RPGs, playing shooters, playing sandbox games, text based and point and click adventures, and more. I've watched games evolve from Zork to Mass Effect. More recently I play such a mix of games like Pokemon, Fallout, Phoenix Wright and Smackdown vs Raw. I've got pre-orders on Okamiden and MvC3. But I game casually. I play for fun, and not to exceed. I rarely play online except co-op with friends, and I couldn't even give you a ballpark as to what my Gamerscore is. I love fighting games but doubt I could beat any one of you here at any of them.

Point is, I'm a casual gamer, through and through, but most people who think of the term "casual gamer" will clump me in amongst people who play Farmville and Wii shovelware. Casual gaming is a style, not a genre of gaming, but people think "casual gamer" and figure that must mean I play Facebook games and Evony, and it's simply not true.

 

[olicon]

I agree with end_boss here. The problem is not casual games--it's trash games.
My definition of modern casual game that is that there is no continuation--it's a task, not a story.
There are amazing "casual games" out there. Tetris, Pacman, and similar old school games also fall into the "casual" genre by this definition, but they were well made for their days. They were simple, but elegant. They accomplish precisely what needs to be done in minimalistic manner. Some trash games, however, simply does not accomplish what it sets out to do. It just so happens that most of these trash games/shovelwares are casual games, because they are meant to be a cash grabbing scheme, and no one in their right mind would spend their time creating a full game that they know would be crap anyway.

 

[WelshDanny]

Casual isn't bad. In fact there are those who would say it is a good thing as they've made so much money! Casual social games are apparently going to make $1 billion this year... http://bit.ly/guVvSu

It's a growing market that's for sure.

 

[CoL0sS]

Casual games are what brings games closer to mainstream audiences; "lay" people if you will. Yes they are simple, with little to no poorly written story, and lousy game mechanics, but you wouldn't put a student driver behind the wheels of a bus. They are made to ease newcomers into complex world of video games. Veteran games with 10+ years of experience know what they want, and how to get it. Newcomers don't.

In the end if they are enjoying themselves and learning that games are all about having fun and not tool of creating aggressive zombie serial killers, or any other shit irresponsible journalists feed them everybody wins. Far be it from me to judge how people use their gaming systems/games.

This is an industry after all, and the whole point of it is to make profit. I can't blame developers for wanting to make money, but I can blame them for ignoring loyal customers, and us for not boycotting their products. I can blame game journalists for raising hype and not asking right questions.

This is all silly generalization of course. Not all devs are like that and there are great examples of how players and journalists must act; right here on the Escapist. Also I'd like to point out that this could just be temporary situation. Casual gamers will get bored with same stuff eventually, and will demand a higher level of quality; something immersive and engaging. But ask me again in two years, perhaps I change my mind.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I think I count as a casual gamer. I have a PS3, and I Casually play games on it...Games like God of War, Castlevania, etc those are a few of my favourite's im currently playing The Sly Collection. I don't play games like Trivial Pursuit or anything like that.

 

[Gralian]

Excuse me, good sir, but where do we retro gamers fit into your ... nifty little theory? Retro games don't tend to have very complicated stories, but many of us play them just as "hardcore" as non-retro gamers play their games of choice.

Retro gamers do not fit into this argument. This is simply because the division between 'casual' and 'hardcore' did not really occur until after the birth of video games into the mainstream market. There were just 'video games'. You only had the arcades, not home consoles, and thus you didn't have 40 hour epics or mini-game collections. You just had a machine in which to insert 50p every five minutes. Then came the early consoles, and they followed a similar pattern because that was what the industry knew how to do. Basic but challenging games based on a 'continue' system. Some people played these games to a 'hardcore' level, yes, but there was simply no real distinction between casual and hardcore. You could play Missile Commander for five minutes, or as long as you could survive if you really tried. It was all up to the player. The player had to decide whether to play it casually or competitively because there were no games designed for either audience specifically. As such, retro gamers today also decategorise themselves when they choose to play primarily retro games. They haven't changed, hence why they are "retro", and thus do not belong in either category because they pre-date such labels. With retro games, the gamers decide whether to play casually or hardcore. With contemporary games, the games are designed specifically whether or not to be 'casual' or 'hardcore'.

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.

Here's the thing, though. You may get say, one in every ten "hardcore" titles producing a Bishock for every Killzone or Gears of War, but by its very nature, it is impossible for casual games to achieve this. We may have a large selection of gritty grey first person shooters in the 'hardcore' market, but if you look hard enough, you will find the odd masterpiece. This comes down to, in simple terms, production values and concept. Casual games are not ever designed to have such intricate stories or game mechanics. They're designed to be non-interlinked, non-sensical mini-games that are to be played at any time and do not tell a story. They can never develop something artistic or intellectual, because otherwise it would not be aimed at the demographic that casual games make the most money from. Now i'm not saying people who play casual games aren't intellectual, but i think most people who buy a casual game expect the game to be just that - a game. Not an artistic statement and not a story. Indie titles can be artistic and auteristic, but we are talking about the industry as a whole here. Big publishers and developers. As for the Twilight comment, i do understand where you're coming from, but i didn't mean it in the sense of pandering to fantasies. I meant it to mean that it's "playing it safe". It's dumbed down, it's not going anywhere, it's not treading new ground. It's doing what the industry knows people will respond to. You can pander to whatever demographic you wish, but it has to be done in a way that's not quite so one-dimensional. Any pandering is at least trying to tell a story. Casual games do not. There is no pandering, there is no attempt to broaden the player's horizons or engage them on more than an instructional level of "shoot ball in hoop to win", there is no emotional investment. I'd rather have someone play to my fantasies of space marines and zombies and orcs than not bother to play to them at all. While i realise you can get mindless 'hardcore' titles, that is not the focus of this topic. The topic was 'why casual games are bad', and as such that is what i am focusing my argument on.

I hope that has helped to clarify my position somewhat.

 

[Blitzwarp]

Because some hardcore gamers like to have someone to look down upon.

 

[Chibz]

Spoiler: SPOILER ALERT

If you think they do, that's the problem people are having with you. You are probably too wilfully ignorant to see the truth. There's a reason FPS games turned away from the frantic, twitchy gameplay when they moved over to consoles, and there's a reason aim-assist systems exist.

I admit the mouse is far more accurate for aiming, but I cannot tolerate the keyboard. The keyboard kills the deal for me. It's terribad for gaming on (Because, frankly, it's not designed for that purpose).

I game on consoles and I don't use aim-assist. I refuse to play games with them being mandatory.

 

[boholikeu]

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.

Here's the thing, though. You may get say, one in every ten "hardcore" titles producing a Bishock for every Killzone or Gears of War, but by its very nature, it is impossible for casual games to achieve this. We may have a large selection of gritty grey first person shooters in the 'hardcore' market, but if you look hard enough, you will find the odd masterpiece. This comes down to, in simple terms, production values and concept. Casual games are not ever designed to have such intricate stories or game mechanics. They're designed to be non-interlinked, non-sensical mini-games that are to be played at any time and do not tell a story. They can never develop something artistic or intellectual, because otherwise it would not be aimed at the demographic that casual games make the most money from. Now i'm not saying people who play casual games aren't intellectual, but i think most people who buy a casual game expect the game to be just that - a game. Not an artistic statement and not a story. Indie titles can be artistic and auteristic, but we are talking about the industry as a whole here. Big publishers and developers. As for the Twilight comment, i do understand where you're coming from, but i didn't mean it in the sense of pandering to fantasies. I meant it to mean that it's "playing it safe". It's dumbed down, it's not going anywhere, it's not treading new ground. It's doing what the industry knows people will respond to. You can pander to whatever demographic you wish, but it has to be done in a way that's not quite so one-dimensional. Any pandering is at least trying to tell a story. Casual games do not. There is no pandering, there is no attempt to broaden the player's horizons or engage them on more than an instructional level of "shoot ball in hoop to win", there is no emotional investment. I'd rather have someone play to my fantasies of space marines and zombies and orcs than not bother to play to them at all. While i realise you can get mindless 'hardcore' titles, that is not the focus of this topic. The topic was 'why casual games are bad', and as such that is what i am focusing my argument on.

I hope that has helped to clarify my position somewhat.

Let me clarify myself a bit, because it seems like you aren't getting my point.

There are intellectual "hardcore" titles (Bioshock), and not so intellectual ones (Gears of War). There are intellectual "casual" titles (Flower, Braid, The Path), and there are some not so intellectual ones (Farmville).

You seem to be arguing that the current popularity of casual titles is similar to the "dumbing down" of movies and literature, but the fact remains that there are both intelligent casual titles and stupid hardcore titles. Therefore, it would seem that the basis of your entire argument is wrong.

I think what might be confusing you here is the difference between complexity and depth. Hardcore titles are generally more complex than casual titles, but that does not make them intellectually deeper than them. A lot can be done with relatively simple mechanics, as a number of art games have already shown. Similarly, some very complex mechanics can be used for nothing more than brain-dead twitch gaming.

To put it another way, let's look at the difference between a soap opera and a haiku. Soap Operas are often very complex. Characters have detailed backgrounds with labyrinthine relationships to each other. Try watching a random episode some time. Unless you have someone next to you to explain the personal history of each person on screen, it'll probably make no sense whatsoever. A haiku on the other hand, uses only a few phrases and a very strict, set structure to convey it's message. By the logic you use with video games, soap operas should be infinitesimally superior to haiku. In reality however, soap operas are the in the gutter of pop culture whereas haiku is considered high art. This is because haiku are deep; they hold more intellectual meaning in a few simple phrases than a soap opera can in a decade long series.

Same goes for video games. The hardcore/casual divide is most often drawn between control schemes and learning curve, not actual intellectual depth.

With contemporary games, the games are designed specifically whether or not to be 'casual' or 'hardcore'.

Interesting you should mention this, since many "casual" games have their roots in the arcade games of old. Is tetris a "hardcore" or "casual" game? Is it possible to play "Bejeweled" as a hardcore game?

On topic, casuals have a much higher tolerance level for bad gameplay, story, lack of innovation, depth and so on, and that's the reason people are up against them. Because when developers start pandering to people with low standards, everyone but those people suffers.

Funny, I tend to find the opposite. It seems to me that hardcore gamers have a higher tolerance level for the following:

Bad gameplay: Bad RPG mechanics like grinding and random encounters weren't really stopped until the influx of more casual gamers into the market. Same with save points in action games.

Bad story: A lot of hardcore gamers just don't realize how bad video game stories are. Even the best writing in the industry would only be considered mediocre by film or literary standards. Non-gamers are a lot less tolerant of this, which is why I imagine they stick to games without a narrative.

Lack of innovation: Are you honestly trying to say that the hordes of copy-cat FPS games, strategy games, and RPGs are more innovative than games like Katamari-Damacy, Spore, Mario Galaxy?

Depth: Covered this a bit above, but Flower, Braid, and The Path are all quite deep despite the fact that they are commonly referred to as casual games.

And so on: Did you know that the casual influence on the industry has actually brought us better UI, in-game tutorials, etc? Most games nowadays are designed to be able to be played without reading the manual, and that's thanks to casuals that didn't want to have to study a game before they started playing it.

 

[Gralian]

There are intellectual "hardcore" titles (Bioshock), and not so intellectual ones (Gears of War). There are intellectual "casual" titles (Flower, Braid, The Path), and there are some not so intellectual ones (Farmville).

You make a good point here. However, i am keeping the audience in perspective. The casual audience would not be interested in games like Flower,Braid or The Path. I've had someone who would normally play something akin to Wii Sports have a go at both Braid and The Path (unfortunately, i do not own Flower and so cannot speak for it) and in both accounts, they went "what the hell, this is stupid" and didn't understand either the mechanics of the game, the purpose of the game, nor find it enjoyable. An indie game is not the same thing as a casual game. People who pick up a collection of mini-games are not going to be interested in something artistic like the games you listed. I wouldn't call artistic indie games "casual" games, even if they are to be played in short, casual bursts. While Telltale Games have acquired a bit of a cult following, they're still a quirky indie development team who aren't exactly the forefront of casual gaming. I doubt many casual gamers (not us, i'm talking housewives, elderly and children) have even heard of Telltale Games, or played any of their games.

With contemporary games, the games are designed specifically whether or not to be 'casual' or 'hardcore'.

Interesting you should mention this, since many "casual" games have their roots in the arcade games of old. Is tetris a "hardcore" or "casual" game? Is it possible to play "Bejeweled" as a hardcore game?

I wouldn't call either of those games 'hardcore' in any sense of the imagination. However, as i said, retro games relied on the gamer to decide whether or not to play the game casually or hardcore. The same could be said for casual games today; people could become terribly invested in the idea of beating their score on whatever casual game they're playing. But that doesn't make the game itself any less casual. To further my point that casual games are detrimental to the industry, if casual games follow the formula of 'retro arcade' gaming, surely it is stagnating the industry. By staying with what we know works, we are not moving on and trying to advance the medium as a whole. Though arguably i guess one could argue whether it needs advancing at all, but if we took that stance, we wouldn't end up with avant garde art or auteristic films because people would stick with "what they know works".
[

 

[e2density]

It's kind of annoying when people who've never played a good game in their life think Farmville is the best game on the planet..but other then that they aren't TOO annoying.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Casual isn't inherently bad. It's simply that it is currently oversaturating the market and consequently mixing into the mainstream, which causes an epidemic of "bastard offspring", as it were.

There needs to be a clear separation between the two, before we have a repeat of the crash of '83.