299: Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Jim Sterling:
Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

As much as hardcore gamers may sneer at casual players, one has to remember a rather stark and unpleasant fact - in more than one way, they're better than you.

Read Full Article

What data do you have that supports the contention you make that casual gamers bought more copies of Enslaved than hardcore gamers, and less copies of K&L2 than hardcore gamers?

I would highly suspect it's the opposite.

Dastardly:

Tin Man:
I for one would like to thank Mr. Sterling for giving me the inspiration for my next blog article...

'Casual gamers are not better then you' - Defending the hardcore from the idea that our long years of investment in the industry isn't directly responsible to where it all is today.

I think the fundamental problem is that many of the customers see themselves as "investors." They're consumers. Having bought a game doesn't make you part of the team or give you a vote. In fact, having bought the game means you've already cast your vote.

If I purchase something, then I've officially given that product a great big ol' "yes vote" in the eyes of the folks selling it. Anything I say afterward can be largely disregarded by them. If I manage to convince other people not to buy it, I might make an impact, but it's all after-the-fact.

There are plenty of developers that speak on forums (particularly in the MMO circuit) about how the "hardcore gamers" tend to get too entitled, opinionated, and demanding. As a result, they tend to alienate developers. It should come as no surprise, then, that more developers are starting to look toward audiences that are just plain nicer about things. Casual gamers just aren't as set in their ways, and that is because they haven't developed a misguided sense of "investment" in a particular way of doing things.

Allow me to make myself clear, because you raise a good point in a well put manner, but I think one of my fundamental points wasn't put across well...

By 'years of investment', I didn't mean, entitled, as you have described it(entitled to an opinion greater then any other shopper, in other words). I meant simply that many of todays hardcode were, 15 years ago, the children bugging their folks for consoles. Then they got their first teen christmas and a ps1, then their own job and a ps2, and now we're fully grown and still the target audience for the vast majority of it all.

The reason for that is buying power. Focusing on the people that play free games on facebook until they're bored doesn't change the fact that the only reason games like that even exist is because you, me, and our entire demographic have over the majority of our lives been consistently following and growing the industry.

Does that entitle us to elitist gamer snobbery? Of course not, but the people who are only just getting on the bandwagon now and giving their disposable income to the Nintendo advertising machine doesn't make them better then us.

Thanks, Jim! I am glad to know that stoned teenagers buying shiny things at 4 AM at a 7-11 are better people in every way than people who save their money for things they will still want more than ten seconds after purchase. Sheep are always better than intelligent human beings.
[/sarcasm]
On a serious note: the health of video games as an INDUSTRY does not interest me one bit. If indie developers make free, cheap, or even normal-cost but low-budget games that I like, I am happy as a clam.

Interesting take on 2 factions that the article represents. I believe there is a third group that are in between Casual and Hardcore Gamers. The folks that have to find time just to play 30 mins of a video game doesn't mean they want to play a game with no depth, but doesn't meant they want to play a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 that takes hours to just get into it.

Dastardly:
3. The clear point the author was making with the "smartness" of the Farmville player is in the financial sense. Rather than shelling out $60 up front, hoping for a good game, these players are choosing experiences that are free to start, and then only paying for what interests them, and only if it interests them. They are encouraging a pricing model that gives them, the player, far more control over the cost of the experience... whereas a lot of us happily roll over and shell out $60 because that's just the norm.

Financial concerns might be one side of the coin, but let's not also forget time investment. A Farmville player (we'll keep using it as an example) might not be paying money for their game, but they are paying in time. Sure, so is the person who pays $60 for a game, but most traditionally released console titles are finite, i.e. they have an end. As far as I know, Farmville does not. There is no end goal or end state to the game. You simply grow and maintain your farm ad infinitum.

You could argue that that further cements Farmville as a smarter financial choice, but I would argue that it's just a bigger time sink. Once I finish my $60 game, I'm usually done with it, unless it's particularly good or there is extra content outside the game ending that makes it worth playing. For me, I've had an experience with a beginning, a middle and an end. The Farmville player has a beginning and then a never ending maintenance schedule, unless they choose to quit, at which point they have nothing to show for it except a slowly deteriorating farm and the hours sunk into the game. I've usually experienced a story, at least, and I have the satisfaction of beating the challenge that any given game presents. Farmville may be challenging in a sense, but you can't ever "beat" it.

So who's really smarter here? Either? I do know that personally I value the time spent in the console games I play more than the time I spent trying out games like Mafia Wars or Farmville. It was readily apparent to me that both games I mentioned would not satisfy me and in fact, were designed in a way that would leave me continually unsatisfied. That is the whole point of those games, it's the way they keep you engaged. There's always that next level, that next tier of gear, the next boss in the hierarchy. I don't see how subjecting oneself to that form of "gaming" is inherently better than any other sort. Sure, it's free if you choose not to pay, but there are scads of players that do invest not only time, but money into these "free to play" games.

Does this mean we need a third category? The smart Farmville player, the stupid Farmville player and the inferior to both "hardcore" gamer?

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Talk about someone else. I'm the bitter fan that curses the "core" gaming public for not buying creative games like Killer 7 or Persona 4, instead opting to be the 9 millionth person to buy the next CoD. I really don't wish I was a Casual player.

I have to completely agree here.

Tin Man:
... Of course not, but the people who are only just getting on the bandwagon now and giving their disposable income to the Nintendo advertising machine doesn't make them better then us.

I do apologize for that misunderstanding. Let me address the above quote, which I feel is both the central thesis of what you were saying (and also one of the main points I think got misinterpreted from the article):

The author seems to be of the mind that a lot of developers are beginning to think that casual gamers are a better target audience. Now, that doesn't mean Blizzard or Valve are switching to casual. It means that new developers coming into the business are finding that their chances for success are greatly improved by going after the casual gamer.

The more hardcore gamers expect an epic scale (read: expensive to make) game every time, and if given the choice they'll tend to buy things very similar to what they've bought in the past. Furthermore, their opinions are older, and more strongly formed... which means they are often inflexible. So, the future developers of the world tend to shy away from that mentality and will start "small" with casual games to build the NEXT audience-cohort like the one you've described...

" Many unique games - Killer 7, Okami, Psychonauts, Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom, to name but a few - have fallen by the wayside due to the hardcore gamer's inherent skepticism. "

What?

Those games are CONSTANTLY touted as being awesome and ones that people should play/pay attention to and who is prompting this?

The hardcore. There is no evidence in this article to suggest that it is the casual gamer who is taking risks on new IPs. They are playing videogames that do not match what people thought of is videogames, that's all.

There's some interesting ideas here but I don't think this article executed them well.

poiumty:

Dastardly:

Your own reaction should, if you take just a moment, serve to prove that point--even if you disagree with how the point was presented.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and you're making assumptions you really shouldn't. My mind is very open and i certainly did consider the truth behind the article. It didn't last. Using debatable facts about piracy to prove a point about casuals, assuming certain things are true without proving them to be so, generalizing a lot more than he should, using a deliberately inflammatory point of view even though it wasn't needed at all and so forth.

But surely my calling of bullshit means i'm too closed-minded to accept his totally valid points. Logic 101.
Ironically enough, i'm not even the demographic he's targetting with this - i'm just pointing out he uses shock value to give him credibility rather than solid reasoning.

I beg to differ.

A:No it doesnt, but causation is simply that. Game developers ARE catering to casuals who are more willing to buy innovation. Its all over the place in this gaming community.

B: His facts about piracy may be debatable, if he presented them as facts. He even acknowledged that some soccor moms might pirate games, but in the end it requires knowledge to pull of major game piracy, which the more hardcore gamers often claim casuals lack. Somehting i myself have seen many times and am guilty of. So are we all wrong about casuals lacking serious software knowledge? If so we are being unfairly elitist. If not, then we must be the ones responable for most piracy, since they lack the no-how to pull it off more often than not.

C:Possibly. You calling bullshit on his totally valid points does strike one as being closed-minded. As evidence supporting that idea i would like to point out that his points were actually rather valid and your calling of bullshit on them suggests your regecting logic as a blanket policy. Especially considering you did so without offering any counter-fact more oslid than his (real stats on soccer moms commiting piracy VS core's) or alternative explanations (Why else are the game developers acting like they do? Why are cores not playing good games that casuals are?).

Financial concerns might be one side of the coin, but let's not also forget time investment. A Farmville player (we'll keep using it as an example) might not be paying money for their game, but they are paying in time. Sure, so is the person who pays $60 for a game, but most traditionally released console titles are finite, i.e. they have an end. As far as I know, Farmville does not. There is no end goal or end state to the game. You simply grow and maintain your farm ad infinitum.

Exactly. Pure bliss.
Sarcasm aside, the point of time works against the core gamer. Some of us buy games and set them aside on finishing. $60 for between 10 hours (modern fps) and 100 hours (rpgs) of play. A farmville player (just using that as the base example still) could play free for that 100 hours, and then play more.
All games are time sinks unless you find away to get paid playing them. Spending more time on them is what most all players want. Farmville players want a bigger farm. MMO players want more areas and loot and levels. RPG players want expansions and party members. FPS players want more maps.
If farmville stops being fun, the player stops playing. Same with all games. You arnt shackled to them. But with no end he doesnt have to feel like he was cheated out of his money via the game ending too soon.

To oversimplyify, i will present it like this:
WoW is a complex and lavish time sink that will suck away your life and cost you hundreds of dollars (60+30+30+30+30+13+13+13+13...).
Black Ops (for variety) is a moderatly complex and aciton packed time sink that will suck away your life and cost you hundreds of dollars (60+10+15+15+15+15...xbox live fee)
Farmville is a simple and idiotic time sink that will suck away your life and cost you a variable sum of money as your own discrecion. (0+variable+variable+variable)

I dont play farmville because i view it as simple and idiotic. But in terms of cost VS time you can play it does have its perks.

Starting from the title, this article is trolling many of its readers into demonstrating aggressive, intolerant behavior. It was meant to break some people of their superiority complex, but the author's attempts to antagonize certain gamers are part of the problem.

I don't think that I'm better than THOSE gamers; I think that my GAMES are better than their GAMES.

I think the definition of hardcore gamer in the article is one who only plays Halo, CoD, and Battlefield or one of any other generic FPS.

1st: One of the biggest questions I have is why is a soccer mom's ignorance a blessing. Yes they won't have any incoming bias about games but is that necessarily a good thing. Aren't ignorant buyers just as likely to be taken in by flashy advertising? Isn't it possible a soccer mom might think "Sonic! what a cute little blue critter. This game looks like it might be fun." without realizing that the Sonic franchise is notorious for turning out terrible games.

2nd: I will say that free games can be a blast. I love to play League of Legends and I think it is an amazing free game. I also know that I have had much thoughtful experiences with console games than free games. What about the wonder of exploring Rapture in Bioshock or running across the rooftops of Rome in Assassin's Creed? Although we are paying $60 for games like these, don't these games have a more lasting emotional impact on us. It seems to me that you are arguing that chips are better than a 4 course meal because a chip gives you instant satisfaction but which one is more nourishing?

3rd: I don't think casual gamers are any more open to new concepts or design than the average gamer. What I think is that the casual gamer market has not been saturated in the same manner as the "hardcore" gamer market has been. I think once you get enough "angry bird" clones or "cut the string" knock offs, casual gamers will become a much more selective audience that is lest like to jump on a game because it is new.

Muphin_Mann:

poiumty:

Dastardly:

Your own reaction should, if you take just a moment, serve to prove that point--even if you disagree with how the point was presented.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and you're making assumptions you really shouldn't. My mind is very open and i certainly did consider the truth behind the article. It didn't last. Using debatable facts about piracy to prove a point about casuals, assuming certain things are true without proving them to be so, generalizing a lot more than he should, using a deliberately inflammatory point of view even though it wasn't needed at all and so forth.

But surely my calling of bullshit means i'm too closed-minded to accept his totally valid points. Logic 101.
Ironically enough, i'm not even the demographic he's targetting with this - i'm just pointing out he uses shock value to give him credibility rather than solid reasoning.

I beg to differ.

A:No it doesnt, but causation is simply that. Game developers ARE catering to casuals who are more willing to buy innovation. Its all over the place in this gaming community.

B: His facts about piracy may be debatable, if he presented them as facts. He even acknowledged that some soccor moms might pirate games, but in the end it requires knowledge to pull of major game piracy, which the more hardcore gamers often claim casuals lack. Somehting i myself have seen many times and am guilty of. So are we all wrong about casuals lacking serious software knowledge? If so we are being unfairly elitist. If not, then we must be the ones responable for most piracy, since they lack the no-how to pull it off more often than not.

C:Possibly. You calling bullshit on his totally valid points does strike one as being closed-minded. As evidence supporting that idea i would like to point out that his points were actually rather valid and your calling of bullshit on them suggests your regecting logic as a blanket policy. Especially considering you did so without offering any counter-fact more oslid than his (real stats on soccer moms commiting piracy VS core's) or alternative explanations (Why else are the game developers acting like they do? Why are cores not playing good games that casuals are?).

Missing all my points and twisting the meaning of my words doesn't make for a good april fool's joke. But at least you tried.

poiumty:
Missing all my points and twisting the meaning of my words doesn't make for a good april fool's joke. But at least you tried.

Your "points" if you can call them that were glaringly obvious from your first post on. The part that reads like a bad joke is what im quoting, where you dont even bother trying to apply any actual logic, statistics, or alternative arguments to oppose either my point or that of the content article and instead reduce yourself to pettily demeaning my pointing out of the flaws in your arguments because you are either unwilling or, more likely unable, to counter them.

Go back to your first post on this thread and re-iterate it, with hard facts or at least reasonable counter arguments or alternatives to support why you think the article is wrong or overly slanted.

Or dont. I cant make you. Im not afraid to acknowledge good points when they come up, like Evil Alpaca's third point that casuals dont suffer the same level of oversaturation to jade them. Or Ryukage who i wholeheartedly agree with to the extent that games like Farmville are trash from an artistic or immersion perspective.

Hahahahahaha! I guess all the douchebags who say James Cameron is the best director of all time based entirely off Avatar who can't name a single other movie he directed are better than people who have actually seen his other work. Happy April Fools Day everybody.

First thing's first, you really need to make a clear indicator for what types of casuals you're talking about, because that makes a huge difference in the points you're trying to make. The people casually playing Farmville or Wii Fit aren't the same people casually playing Call of Duty. 'Core developers' care deeply about how they can tap one of those markets, while the other is already being strip mined as much as it can be. Anyway, now that that has been said.

Developers aren't willing to take risks because of the cost of development, not the movements of their audience. People don't jump on those new ideas because the big developers are too afraid to touch them, and if you don't have a triple-A or close quality game with big ideas, then the market won't move in that direction, at least not in this stage of gaming's life cycle. That's why things like XBLA are so exciting. The cost of entry for developers is falling through the floor, and within a few years we will see a plethora of interesting games that make a tidy profit and explore new ideas that the triple-A arms will rip off wholesale. It's shady, but it will lead to much better games.

Also, what new ideas are casual gamers more interested in? Something that caters to their passing interest? Okay. So why bring up games like Killer 7 and Psychonauts as if casual gamers would be interested in them? Heads up, they wouldn't be, and they won't be the next time games like that are released. Do you really think a company like Bethesda cares about the movements of people obsessively playing Farmville? I don't think so. As I said earlier, they're more interested in people casually playing games like Call of Duty, because unlike your Wii Fit audience, those people can actually make the core gaming market move drastically.

Muphin_Mann:

Your "points" if you can call them that were glaringly obvious from your first post on.

Oh no, it's not like that. You see, what I'm saying is that you almost completely misunderstood the things I said. In that regard, my points being "glaringly obvious" is another misunderstanding on your part. And unless you presume to know what the "true meaning" behind my own post was, you shouldn't assume you understood what i said anymore until you've at least made a valid counterargument.

About the piracy issue (which was about the only part of your post that argued with what I was actually saying): we have yet to logically prove that piracy is even a harmful force in the industry. Even so, it's true that casuals being less tech-savvy would imply that they pirate less, but then going on to base the rest of your points on a free to play game doesn't give your argument any depth.

Go back to your first post on this thread and re-iterate it, with hard facts or at least reasonable counter arguments or alternatives to support why you think the article is wrong or overly slanted.

I like how you're implying that i'm the one who should bring facts. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim, not the one who refutes it. There's logic for you. Who's "regecting" it now?
When someone goes on wikipedia and says [citation needed], "Prove me wrong" is not usually an accepted rebuttal.

But I said I wouldn't get into a lengthy discussion, as the article is big and I have other things to do. If you want to convince me that it isn't bullshit, at least show me you can understand what I'm saying first.

It´s not enough that the article insulted me in many ways. No, it appears in my RSS feed for the third time now, always reminding me of this piece of trolling.. :-(

Dastardly:

The author seems to be of the mind that a lot of developers are beginning to think that casual gamers are a better target audience. Now, that doesn't mean Blizzard or Valve are switching to casual. It means that new developers coming into the business are finding that their chances for success are greatly improved by going after the casual gamer.

No problem my friend, and I apologise for the awful syntax at the end of that post...

You make some very good points, and like I said, I'm growing an article out of all this and I like this as a thought/note making process... The internet works!

Anyway, I have to say, I agree with the above point. I think the gaming world has grown to a size where its perfectly workable to have entire segments of the market consistently making the kind of thing that steers clear of the shelves(the advent of XBLA, iphone gaming, and their kin ensure they have a platform), and still manages to make a tidy profit for the people that put the work in.

But lets not kid ourselves, the big money and the big attention is always going to be on you and I, and the idea the casual gamers are a 'better' market is one I do still have a grievance with. 'Different', absolutely. Small scale/independent dev teams can't jump headfirst into the AAA world these days anymore then a guy with a couple of grand and a camcorder can break into Hollywood. Truly good indie or (relatively)low budget games always wind up in the big pool anyway. Braid, Limbo, Monday Night Combat, Angry Birds...

Facebook games are a different thing in my opinion. This is literally just my personal view, I don't want to sway you or anyone else by arguing it, but I don't see them as experiences to be had, I see them as things designed not to be beaten and explored but to waste time and keep you on Facebook longer, spending more time looking at those lovely adverts...

*sigh*

Some good points, buried beneath a layer of vitriol designed to provoke flamewars in the comments without actually contributing anything to the article. It's like, you had some really good ideas, then said to yourself, "Let's see, how can I get more pageviews... I know! I'll make some inflammatory generalizations!" and lost sight of the message you were trying to convey. And yes, I "get" that it's supposed to be over-the-top and sarcastic, but it doesn't work.

I'll skip the lengthy rant about "I don't hate Zynga because they make 'casual games,' I hate Zynga because they make BAD casual games," because it's been said too many times (although, given Zynga's history of installing malware on their players' computers, they might not be the best example to pick anyway).

So has the point that you seem to be overlooking advertising (which, make no mistake, is the BIGGEST factor in hard-copy game sales), but I suppose that would just be more whining from the butthurt hardcore gamer, huh?

As long as the "core" gamers still get games which they enjoy, why should they care if casual get games? Interesting article, but I don't completely agree...

I agree that the Casual audience gets too much unnecessary hate thrown at it, and I agree that any given hardcore gamer is not 'better' than any given casual gamer but your arguments were pretty terrible, if I'm honest.

As much as I do have an inherent dislike for the casual gaming audience, I at least know that this is irrational and there's nothing really wrong with them. I consider myself a "core" or "hardcore" gamer and I do not at all fit the stereotype that this article tries to set for me. First of all, if I see a game from an obscure developer that looks interesting, I get interested in it. Every hardcore gamer I know is just the same. As far as I can tell, the writer was making a extremely uninformed and narrow minded generalization. Of course when a game comes out from a company I like I'm obviously going to have high expectations from it, and why not? They've made good games in the past, it's reasonable to assume that their new games will also be good.

Secondly, I completely disagree with the article's statement that we should become like casual gamers. The phrase "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind at this point. Casual gamers have much less exposure to the gaming industry so simple games like farmville appeal much more to them, there's less of a learning curve to get into it. As you play more games, however, you'll want more complex stuff, games with gripping storylines, good gameplay and immersion. I'm sure that I'd find games more fun if I enjoyed every single game that came out, but if people did that there would be almost no improvement in games. Not to mention that I actually have a personal taste in games, I can't suddenly say, "Farmville is a free game and easy to get into therefore I shall start liking it as of now."

Wow, it's pretty evident that I hate farmville.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is that casual gamers are fine, if they want a simpler gaming experience then power to them, and hardcore gamers are also fine. I don't care how efficient it would be for me to completely change my interests but that isn't going to happen. I'm perfectly content playing games like Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect, Dragonage, and no amount of backwards logic will change that.

in all honesty this just comes off as pretentious and i can never believe anything that comes off as pretentious

I really enjoyed reading this article and the comments and evrything in it is true but for good reason. I am a hardcore gamer myself and yes it true that we complain and bitch about casual gamers.
I think the fear we(hardcore gamers) hav is that most developers main ineterest is just making money and that they lack in passion and skill to make deeper and better games.
We think if we dont complain about casuals and making a point about it, developers will just do what they want and produce less good games.

So i say : lets fight for the art of gaming and look down upon casual gamers !!!

benvorbeck:
I really enjoyed reading this article and the comments and evrything in it is true but for good reason. I am a hardcore gamer myself and yes it true that we complain and bitch about casual gamers.
I think the fear we(hardcore gamers) hav is that most developers main ineterest is just making money and that they lack in passion and skill to make deeper and better games.
We think if we dont complain about casuals and making a point about it, developers will just do what they want and produce less good games.

So i say : lets fight for the art of gaming and look down upon casual gamers !!!

Casual gaming seems to be the ultimate evil for so many. You know what, I agree. Let's NOT make people enjoy games, that's such an oldschool and stupid concept, we should really just have them grind endlessly. Let them know they must do chores for EVERYTHING and even the momentary enjoyment they have, should be crushed.

I say, let's not even stop there! Let's take it a step forward and abolish amateur sports as well. Damn casuals ruining the enjoyment of professional sports, HOW DARE THEY?!

Amen, Jim. Amen.

Rather than squealing and whining about the influx of Casual gamers "killing off the industry", self-professed Hardcore Gamers should welcome the new blood with open arms. Diversity is a good thing for the industry and for the medium as a whole, and the broad tastes of Casual gamers give developers an opportunity to develop new and original titles. I'd rather see a new quirky little puzzle game than another tired rehash of Generic Space Marine Shooter #431

Alas, the Hardcore crowd would rather sit in the corner sulking about not being the only ones in their special little clubhouse anymore. I may not personally be interested in Dance Central or Farmville myself, but I welcome their addition to the greater fabric of gaming because it should be something everyone can enjoy. Whether a game is ultimately fun or not is what should matter, not arbitrary classifications made up by bitter nerds with an entire fish and chip shop on their shoulder. To quote Omar from The Wire, "it's all in the game bro."

Then again I started playing games at a time when they weren't so rigidly defined as they are now, came on cassette tapes sold at pharmacies and took ten minutes to load, so my perspective is somewhat different from your typical screaming adolescent Halo fanboy.

Jim Sterling:
Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

As much as hardcore gamers may sneer at casual players, one has to remember a rather stark and unpleasant fact - in more than one way, they're better than you.

Read Full Article

Troll much?

Seriously the only thing that casual gamers have over core gamers is that they are willing to throw cash at developers for crap content. I'm not sure thats better... unless you're a developer.

teknoarcanist:
Twenty years from now, we're going to look back at this as the period when gaming took off as a socially acceptable recreational activity, to the extent that your grandma was playing games -- and wonder why in the hell we ever saw this as a bad thing.

In the short term, sure, it makes publishers put down that interesting new IP and run screaming for the shovelware money pile.

But in the long term? More of society playing games? More money going into games? Games like Wii Fit 'gameifying' workout routines and Chore Wars gameifying household responsibilities -- how can any hardcore gamer be so against this rapid expansion of the medium into all the corners of the modern experience?

It's equal parts people don't like change and too many hard core gamers are hipster douche bags who resist the idea that their niche market is becoming mainstream. This resistance has happened to every entertainment medium that has ever become popularized and wide spread. From heavy metal and rap to comic book super heroes.

As long as only a few people know about or are into it then the hipster feels superior for knowing about it and embracing it. He loses that feeling of superiority when lots of people embrace it and reacts with anger before moving onto something else niche to invest his ego into for knowing about.

It's an endless cycle of pretentiousness.

Continuity:

Jim Sterling:
Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

As much as hardcore gamers may sneer at casual players, one has to remember a rather stark and unpleasant fact - in more than one way, they're better than you.

Read Full Article

Troll much?

Seriously the only thing that casual gamers have over core gamers is that they are willing to throw cash at developers for crap content. I'm not sure thats better... unless you're a developer.

Hey have you ever played an NES game? 90% of them were crap that we as children begged our parents for with tears and tantrums. The causal game glut is just in that preliminary phase. In ten years all those casual gamers of today will be just as jaded and angry as we are.

Darkauthor81:

teknoarcanist:
Twenty years from now, we're going to look back at this as the period when gaming took off as a socially acceptable recreational activity, to the extent that your grandma was playing games -- and wonder why in the hell we ever saw this as a bad thing.

In the short term, sure, it makes publishers put down that interesting new IP and run screaming for the shovelware money pile.

But in the long term? More of society playing games? More money going into games? Games like Wii Fit 'gameifying' workout routines and Chore Wars gameifying household responsibilities -- how can any hardcore gamer be so against this rapid expansion of the medium into all the corners of the modern experience?

It's equal parts people don't like change and too many hard core gamers are hipster douche bags who resist the idea that their niche market is becoming mainstream. This resistance has happened to every entertainment medium that has ever become popularized and wide spread. From heavy metal and rap to comic book super heroes.

As long as only a few people know about or are into it then the hipster feels superior for knowing about it and embracing it. He loses that feeling of superiority when lots of people embrace it and reacts with anger before moving onto something else niche to invest his ego into for knowing about.

It's an endless cycle of pretentiousness.

Hardcore gamers, shamed into exile, now form a closely-knit community around the cultivation of homemade yogurts.

No offense, but... I don't agree. In some parts you are indisputably right, but in some cases, not so much. It is the middle-of-the-road people who buy the games like Kane & Lynch 2, not the real core gamers. My definition of "core gamer" may be more narrow than yours, but I believe that the core gamer is careful enough to at least try and figure out how good a game is before they play it, and is intelligent enough to know that Okami or Psychonauts is better than that sequel to that one drab shooter.

In some ways, I think the author is playing devil's advocate. However, this

Bear in mind, of course, that the Farmville player is having just as much fun as you are, regardless of the experience's respective depths.

is hogwash.

Oh, there may be fun to be had in Farmville in the beginning. But what I see over and over again in Farmville and most other Facebook games of its ilk is that it ceases to be "fun" long before the player stops playing. A sense of your community of players "needing" you, a fear of the possibility of "losing" virtual goods if one doesn't log in frequently, a sense of losing things one has spent hours of one's life on that leads to throwing good time after bad... In the long run, these games aren't even designed to be "fun". They're designed to be just flashy and/or entertaining enough to draw a player in, to string out a bare minimum of content (designer output, thus stuff that actually costs the dev time and money to design) while seeding the mechanics that fill the player with senses of pseudoresponsibility and dread and keep them playing even if the process of doing so is making the player miserable!

Say what you will about the big franchises, the players put as much time into them as they choose, and at a certain point, they're done with them and moving on to the next thing having refined their tastes. And probably actually enjoyed themselves. The equation that says a $60 game with ten to twenty hours of genuinely enjoyable play is a worse deal than a game that's "free" but gives five hours of enjoyable play, five hours of amusing play, and then another ninety or more hours of "Oh sweet mother of pearl, what time is it, I've got to water my crops!" is a false equation.

Article Name: Casual Gamers Are Better Than You

Let's just look at that article name. Clearly intended to flame. That's it. I can think of one place where that kind of flaming is allowed to fly: /b.

Good job, Mr. Sterling. You are a troll from 4chan. And congrats, you got lots of readers to bite on your trolling. Myself included. You win, I guess.

Here, I'll spend 2 sentences pretending that you deserve serious argument:

The idea that someone mindlessly playing Farmville is having just as much fun as a hardcore gamer going back to Halflife 2 would have is ridiculous.

A more accurate statement: 5 million casual gamers have more money than 100,000 hardcore gamers.

Okay, I'm done. Couldn't keep biting.

You abused shock value to get this error-riddled article published. Only garbage journalism would replace quality writing with shock value. Shame on you.

Hey, escapist magazine - First the "pc gaming is dead" article, now This excrement - how about you start requiring these terrible journalists to actually back up their bold statements before publishing their articles?

Here's a rubric for you:

1. Does the article's content back up the initial statements? Y/N

There you go. If the answer to that is no, send it back. This should never have been published.

What do you mean, "hardcore gamers distrust innovation?" "Hardcores" are always bitching and moaning about the fact that call of duty is getting its 7th sequel, or how many clones of specific games there are. Look at portal, look at minecraft.

You've VASTLY overgeneralized a lot of people to support your argument. A lot. As in, I have never seen this much in one article.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here