Why is "Casual" bad?

[CactiComplex]

I always thought a casual gamer was someone who owned a console/PC/etc and played on a semi-regular basis, as I do. It never occurred to me that playing farmville was actually classed as gaming in the traditional (not sure that's the right word, maybe mainstream?) sense of the word.

To answer the question, I don't think it's that much of a bad thing for gaming companies as it gives them a wider audience and more opportunity to make money, but it could result in less 'proper' games being produced in favour of an easy hit, thus alienating the fanbase/audience that got them to where they are now.

I don't know, really, the definition of 'casual' here is a little too loose for me to debate properly.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

So I hear alot about how Casual gamers are the scum of the earth or that Casual Gamers are all evil. Why?
Why this Antagonism to people who just play games for fun and never really get into it much more than that.
EDIT: I am not a casual I can tell that much from my choice of games, I just want to know about why we have beef with "casuals", To be honest I think we should just take this "Hardcore" and "Casual" bullshit away, It adds or contributes nothing to gaming as a whole and is only there so elitists can be assholes.

they create classes so that it's easier to manipulate gamers, in fact they create inequities in order to make us pay more, and with no defense, apart from boycotting, we fall in these manipulative traps.

 

[boholikeu]

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.

It seems like your making a lot of generalizations about casual gamers, or maybe I'm just operating with a different definition from yours. How exactly would you define a casual gamer? What about a casual game?

You make a lot of references to "collections of mini games". Are casual games restricted to party games, puzzle games, and facebook games? Why is a puzzle game considered casual when they can often be much more difficult than "hardcore" games? Why aren't telltale games considered to be casual? They are both pretty easy and accessible, doesn't that fit the bill well enough?

Maybe you can find some definition that answers all these questions, but too often than not when I see someone complaining about casual games, they really only mean "accessible genres I don't like".

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".
[

Funny that you should mention advancement of the medium, because from where I'm standing most of the advancements in the past few years have been due to the increased influence of casual gamers. Better UI, better learning curves, tighter game design, all of these seem to come from the desire to expand sales to those that don't normally play many (if any) games.

 

[steph01a]

I'm so 'casual' I sometimes go several weeks without playing any vid game. I do enjoy reading about how one game or game platform is "so much better (or worse)" than a different one.

My problem is that real life stops by to play with me often and I get all locked up in that.

 

[boholikeu]

Why are "casual" games bad? Because they're just flash-based games which developers charge $20 for, that's why. If other people want to throw their money away, that's their business, but it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the industry. Why would anybody continue spending millions on developing full-featured RPGs and the like when they could just spend a few weeks developing some POS like Angry Birds and sell it to every iPhone/Android owner on the planet?

If new audiences want to get into video games, that's fine...there should be no barrier for entry. But they should be aware that what they're paying for is the most shallow and unfulfilling experiences available.

So instead of spending millions of dollars on graphics and sound (which is where most of the money of these blockbuster games goes anyway), developers would instead have to focus on creating solid gameplay mechanics?

Sounds like a gaming renaissance to me.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

I don't really think that casualk gaming is bad, I just think it's getting a little out of hand.

It seems like a lot of game developers are just out to make a quick buck off of those who are new to the gaming world. After the Wii took off in populatiry, along with the ever popular Wii Sports, it seemed that a lot of people scrambled to make their own Wii Sports or some other random group of mini-games. This floods the market with a huge amount of games that are mediocre at best, all trying to cash in on the new audience.

There are a lot of fun casual games. I can gaurantee that the lion's share of everyone here has lost an hour or two to Tetris without realising it. Rock Band, Wario Ware, Dr. Mario, Street Fighter, Plants Vs. Zombies, Minecraft, and god knows how many others. The problem doesn't lie in casual gaming itself, it lies with the developers who produce bad casual games.

 

[veloper]

Casual is bad when the industry stop catering to non/casuals.

I´d rather see a market of very casuals games and strictly hardcore games, than the compromises that happen now.

 

[McMarbles]

I have a question for casuals.

Why play games?

You're casual about games, sure, I get that, not everyone needs to be serious about everything. You DO have something you're serious about though, don't you? Why not JUST do that? Why not just devote your time to what actually matters to you? Why the need to take away time from important soul-defining passions to just have fun with something you don't care that much about?


My problem with casuals is this; they seem to not have ANYTHING they're serious about, they spend a lifetime of unspecified time, being casual about absolutely everything and serious about nothing, which to me is a waste of time, life, resources and potential, which greatly annoys me fundamentally. I believe people should find what they really love, their passion, and do that. This way we're all better for it since we all have counterparts in our own fields we can actually communicate with on a deeper, more meaningful than the "uhh...i just played that for like 2 hours dude, i don't remember the guy's name" level.

So, you have no other interests besides gaming, then?

Nobody's allowed to have more than one interest?

 

[JourneyMan88]

Hardcore gamers need to understand that the casual gamers are the reason games sell millions of copies. Without these sales, millions of dollars would never be put into the development of the next Halo/COD/Gears... etc. Without these sales and this money, the games they love simply wouldn't exist, at least not in the form they're used to. Imagine what games would look like if they only sold a few thousand copies, we'd still be playing games that look like the original Goldeneye.

 

[veloper]

Hardcore gamers need to understand that the casual gamers are the reason games sell millions of copies. Without these sales, millions of dollars would never be put into the development of the next Halo/COD/Gears... etc. Without these sales and this money, the games they love simply wouldn't exist, at least not in the form they're used to. Imagine what games would look like if they only sold a few thousand copies, we'd still be playing games that look like the original Goldeneye.

Not a problem. Gfx aren't everything.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I think the only time I've really hated casual gaming was Nintendo's incredibly poor excuse for an E3 line up in 2009. At least I think it was 2009, it was the one where they announced the music game for the wii where you pretended your wiimote was an instrument.

 

[gigastrike]

Because people are elitists.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I have a hard time swallowing the "depth of play" argument. Let's take all multiplayer FPS games for example. Fans will go on about how "deep" their game is. Let me ask you this: Does it matter, I mean *really* matter, whether you kill enemies with the sniper rifle or dual pistols? No it does not, your score still goes up by 1 and people still call you a douche for killing them. Does having a talent tree make the game deep? No it does not, there will only be 3-4 viable builds at most in any such game, so the field will never be anywhere near as varied as you'd think. Does increasing your place on some scoreboard or achievement counter really matter? No it does not, you will still have to go to work tomorrow.

No matter how involved you think the game is, how many hours you sink into it, how high you get in the rankings, or how vigorously you insult people who play other games, the simple fact is that some day you will stop playing your special game. Then all you will have will be memories which no one except you will care about.

 

[captain_Bubblebum]

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.

Everything this chap says.


Casual gaming is bad in the same way that donuts are bad. I mean, sure you can eat some every day, but you'll end up *****ing paste out your ass and (quite possibly) die. BUT if you have one every once in a while (casual munchies) then you're gonna be okay.


EDIT:

No matter how involved you think the game is, how many hours you sink into it, how high you get in the rankings, or how vigorously you insult people who play other games, the simple fact is that some day you will stop playing your special game. Then all you will have will be memories which no one except you will care about

What is your point? No one cares about someone else's memories......if someone cared about my memories I'd feel like my personal space was being violated.

 

[Ashcrexl]

i really hate casual games because it's impossible to have fun with any one of them for more than an hour before they become annoyingly dull. unless it's really well designed. like Plants vs. Zombies well designed, but those are extremely rare.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I have a question for casuals.

Why play games?

You're casual about games, sure, I get that, not everyone needs to be serious about everything. You DO have something you're serious about though, don't you? Why not JUST do that? Why not just devote your time to what actually matters to you? Why the need to take away time from important soul-defining passions to just have fun with something you don't care that much about?


My problem with casuals is this; they seem to not have ANYTHING they're serious about, they spend a lifetime of unspecified time, being casual about absolutely everything and serious about nothing, which to me is a waste of time, life, resources and potential, which greatly annoys me fundamentally. I believe people should find what they really love, their passion, and do that. This way we're all better for it since we all have counterparts in our own fields we can actually communicate with on a deeper, more meaningful than the "uhh...i just played that for like 2 hours dude, i don't remember the guy's name" level.

So, you have no other interests besides gaming, then?

Nobody's allowed to have more than one interest?

I wasn't speaking about me personally but if you're curious, yes and no. Gaming is a form of my interest, I play a certain type of games that I have come to define as a different representation of my passion but one important enough to explore and be deeply involved in.

It's not that I'm prohibiting people, I'm just saying that I believe everyone would be happier and with more meaning in their lives if they found that one thing that strikes them hard and true and spend their time on it rather than casually bouncing around to fads and trends without any sense of identity.