Wii Are the Champions

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I personally would love to see the day that people stop classifying themselves as "hardcore" gamers. The very concept of being hardcore is a term that makes me gag everytime I hear it. Gaming is gaming, there should be no title affiliated with it. If you don't like games that are mini-game based, then you don't like them, that doesn't make them any less a game than killzone 2. So for the love of god, stop referring to yourself like you have some sort of prestigious title in gaming, and let the term hardcore die off in peace...

also, I don't care about casual games, cause I don't buy them. No harm no foul. I own a 360 and a wii, so I can get the best of both worlds for genres of games (mainly just FPS on 360, and everything else on the wii).

I loved this article, and it summed up something I've been meaning to say for a long time. Besides, the Wii has enough "mainstream" titles that will bring people up from the "newcomer" stage if they choose to progress.

Do you remember back when all you needed to be a gamer was a pocket full of quarters and a trip to the arcade? Now I need this console, or that console, or this game for this console or else I'm not as serious about it as the rest of you, or I have to play this much time per week, or buy new games this often, etc, etc, etc.

The Wii reminded us that anyone can enjoy some form of video game, and if it comes down to Nintendo selling bathroom scales, midi synthesizers, and rehashing franchises for the hundredth time, I don't think we should really mind. It doesn't force us to play it. Some people like it who aren't experienced in what we could argue is better.

It's as if you're an artist, and someone drew a picture that had many flaws in it. Other people like it. You, as an experienced artist, can explain to them why they shouldn't like it, why this other picture is better, why they're terrible or stupid for enjoying it, but you can't make them stop enjoying it. Why would you try to anyway? They're having fun, aren't they?

I really don't think so, OP.

Most people I know with a Wii will either play forever the same mini-games or lame IQ tests with their trendy friends, then let the console gather dust in a cupboard, or they'll play Zelda, Smash Bros, get mad at the shitty online game system of Smash, and then buy another console for "bigger" games. In fact, I know more people of column B, and they don't play with their Wii anymore, they bought themselves a PS3 or a X360. There are way too many crappy 3d-party games, and the really good games are scarce or directed at a specific audience (I really don't think just anyone can pick up Zack & Wiki and have fun right away, same for No More Heroes, no matter how cool they are).

Worse, if the only good games of the Wii are the "internal" Nintendo games, then the catalogue is looking bad...
I know there are Guitar Hero games on the Wii, but it's part of those marginal games I was counting.

Plus I already have both first Guitar Heroes on my PS2, for instance, so that's a failed incentive, I'm fed up of the series already...

There is another thing that burns me about this farcical distinction of hardcore vs casual gaming. Let's assume for the moment that these labels are legitimate and well-defined for the sake of argument. The common thinking among the hardcore crowd appears to be that casual games are inherently crappy by fact of nature. I contend this is not true and that any perceived crappiness of the casual game is an artifact of poor or lazy design on the part of the developer, not the result of any intrinsic property of casual games. The only reasonable distinctions that I can see that set a casual game apart from a hardcore game is the lack of encyclopedic rules sets and a pacing that does not necessitate life destroying time commitments to play the game. Apart from this, many hardcore games are just as shallow, repetitive, and crappy, if not more so, as their more casual counterparts are accused of being.

In my opinion, many game developers are trying to "cash-in" on the casual gaming craze and completely misunderstand the nature of a casual game. Again, I exemplify what I mean with the statement that chess is one of the most "hardcore" "casual" games you will ever play. The entire set of rules of chess can be written on one side of a single sheet of paper, and these rules are quite simple. However, mastering the strategy and play of chess could take a life-time of effort and learning; this is because of the many emergent situations arising from the interactions of these rules and the actions of the players. Another example is the game Pac-Man. If one researches the design of Pac-Man, one will discover that its rule set is surprisingly small and simple. But, being able to play the game with significant skill, without memorizing one of the patterns, takes considerable practice and understanding of how these rules interact within the game to create responses of the ghost monsters to the player's actions.

The two examples above exemplify what I consider is the deficiency in these game developers' understanding of the design and play of the casual game. The casual game is designed with a small set of simple rules that are self-consistent and universally applied throughout the game. However, these rules interact significantly with each other and with the player in a self-feedback manner such to bring about emergent behaviors and situations that are difficult to predict a priori. A great deal of variation and complexity can develop within the casual game as a result of this interaction. This serves to create a fun and varying gaming experience for the gamer without requiring massive time commitment, memorization of encyclopedic special-case rules, or spreadsheet optimization of gear and character specification.

My own feeling is that developing a compelling casual game is more a challenge than any hardcore game. The hardcore game merely requires the packing of more parts into the game, with little regard for consistency or interaction, only presentation. The casual game, one the other hand, requires a very carefully considered set of choices by the game developer to create a highly interactive experience that evolves, responds, and varies significantly with player actions, and further to allow the player to respond in creative ways within the context of the game.

Casual games create their own self-consistent reality, when done properly, rather than constantly attempt to achieve similitude with the real-world(the uncanny valley is a very noticeable problem for the current crop of "realistic" games). As long as the game clearly establishes its rules and does not pervert, subvert, or violate those rules at "convenient" moments, the gamer is able to suspend disbelief and immerse himself within the reality presented by the game. This is something, in my opinion, that many of the hardcore games have so far failed to achieve. In other words, I contend that immersion is achieved by the clear establishment of self-consistency and inviolability, not mimicry. Superior graphics and sound only serve to enhance the immersion, not establish it.

Now, moving off the demarcation of hardcore versus casual game, in my opinion, there are really six kinds of games: "excellent", "good", "decent", "mediocre", "half-assed", and "shitty"(there is a hidden seventh kind, "uninteresting", representing games the gamer just doesn't care about). These are subjective categories as they depend on the tastes and preferences of the gamer. Attempting to attach measurable objectivity to these categories subverts gamer choice and threatens to reduce gaming from an exciting, entertaining experience to a mere number-crunching optimization exercise. In other words, it defeats the artistry and spirit of gaming, turning gaming into a monotonous, inbreed stream of clones and sequels.

I could probably say more, but I think this wall-of-text has grown enough.

Okay, I just finished registering my account specifically so I could comment on this article. So, think of me as the forum newbie. I suppose I'm on the border between hardcore and casual gaming, without standing fully in either category. I love playing PC games like Mount&Blade, Civilization, Europa Universalis, Battlefield 2, and Counter-Strike (to name a few), but I stopped playing console games after the N64, so I know zilch about modern-day games. My first PC game was Age of Empires, and my first console games were Block-Out, Sonic the Hedgehog and Joe Montana Football for the Sega Genesis. That's just a little background to put my comment in perspective.

For me, all that really matters about a game is whether or not it is fun (for me), but I know full well that what's fun for me is not necessarily fun for others, and vice versa. As long as a game has a market, I see nothing wrong with producing it. Obviously, someone likes it. If they didn't, they wouldn't play it. Take Halo for instance: it makes my eyes bleed and gives me a headache. But I can understand why it's popular, and at the very least, it makes a fun party game. The only time I'm willing to play it is when I'm at a party with friends. Same with Rock Band, although I personally prefer WATCHING my friends play it than actually playing it myself. It's amusing. :P

johnx61:
If they don't, it'll be casual shovelware from here on out. Because that's what's driving the market right now. Do I really need to remind anyone what happened in 1983?

The video game crash had a number of issues (all conveniently listed on Wikipedia) and the number of poor games is the most prominently debated yet most unimportant in my opinion. Everybody and his dog could (and did) make a video console or even more easily a game, that's not the case anymore. Shelf space was a major issue, that's not the case anymore. The ability to make an informed decision before buying a game was virtually nonexistent, that's not the case anymore. Also, PC gaming never died despite the lack of the Nintendorian licensing regime we had in the NES days.

I can see where you are coming from, market forces and so on. Growing demand equals growing supply of shovelware. This is true to some extent and there always will be developers jumping on the current bandwagon to get some of that easy money too. However, would you play a game from those guys in the first place? You should actually appreciate that these vultures are feeding of another carcass right now instead of plaguing your favorite genre like they already did during the FPS hype, the Sim hype, the RPG hype, the MMOG hype and so on. This isn't a new phenomenon and Bioware or Valve won't start making Bejeweled clones just cause thats where the money apparently is right now.

From the article:

The most common lamentation to rise from the chanting faithful is that casual games are "ruining" mainstream games. But last time I checked, Hideo Kojima wasn't working on the script for Peggle III, and John Carmack wasn't writing a new "shiny things" engine for Bejeweled VI: The Jewelening. Romantic comedies didn't "ruin" action movies, they just got a different group of people to go to the movies. Games are still evolving and inbreeding the way they always have, and I don't think we're getting less just because someone else is getting more. This is how things work when new markets open up.

Up until that paragraph I was agreeing with the article although I was uncertain what the point of it was. Then said paragraph arrived and Shamus finally got to the crux of the matter, and the article went somewhat pear-shaped IMO.

John Carmack, for example, recently stated in some keynote speech or other that in the near future he wants to focus on games for mobile phones rather than PC games (which, he said, are dying). Now I'm not sure whether a "casual" gamer is someone who casually plays games or someone who plays casual games, but either way I reckon a mobile phone gamer qualifies as one, and so Shamus' use of John Carmack as an example of how casual gaming is not ruining "hardcore" gaming somewhat backfires in his face.

The action movie analogy is similarly flawed. I'm not really an action movie fan, but if I were then I reckon I could cobble together a decent argument supporting the idea that action movies really were ruined by the increase in the popularity of romcoms. Once upon a time Sly and Arnie were... oh nevermind. The point is that all products, including movies and video games, are driven by their markets. Someone has to pay for the product to be produced and that someone is invariably only interested in forking out the cash if it means they'll get even more cash when the product is finished and sold. Shamus' notion that the whinging of hardcore gamers is going to have any effect on that is as flawed as the logic behind said whiners' whinging. And no, I'm not sure about the grammar of that last sentence.

i for one welcome our new casual gamer overlords

I've played casual games, usually to cool down after playing many many hours of a game that's frustrating me. The Wii in my house is usually just for playing multiplayer games, the 360 is for all my more violent and mainstream titles.

I know this is a specific case, but it is the general way of things right now.
I present case World of Warcraft:

Vanilla, Hardcore, you raided or you didn't play basically, raiding was bland and took aaaages. (Molten Bore ahoy). Raiding became more dynamic in AQ20/40 and Naxxramas.

The Burning Crusade: Raiding is awesome, starts off difficult so only the best guilds can beat it, then is slooowly nerfed down, near the end of TBC people branding themselves as "Casuals" cry, and cry, and cry and whiiine that the game is too hard for them and thus the content is made easy to the point where a drunken monkey can do it.

Wrath of the Lich King: EVERYBODY can do the content, no matter how bad you are, most guilds are all fully geared, there aren't enough raids to do and people are bored. Complaints from Normal-Hardcore people that the game is too hard are met with responses such as "If you don't like it quit" regardless of how hypocritical that is, because they blatenley didn't when the game was too hard for them.

This is what "entitled casuals" do to the game market my friends, casual gamers I'm indifferent to, sure they play casually but I'm sure they like some of a challenge, which WoW currently provides none, the new breed of "entitled casuals" has done this, with the mantra that they are ENTITLED to see EVERYTHING because they payed for it. Its essentially the same as playing with infinite ammo and god mode turned on currently, sure its fun at first but there's no challenge or sense of accomplishment and thus becomes boring pretty quickly.

If you aint good enough, that's the way, you don't see me screaming I'm entitled to get in the olypmpics because I'm not good enough to do so.

Games these days are short, easy (cough fable 2 cough) and bland, there is no innovation and there continues to be none and causes mediocre games like Halo to be branded the BEST GAME EVAR.

I rest my case.

I am more and more convinced we need better terminology.

There are "casual" players who like games that are easy to learn and can be played in 20-minute stretches. Bejeweled, Peggle, those item-hunt games, LEGO games, puzzle pirates.

There are also "casual" players like the ones elvor0 just mentioned, who will work a character in WoW up to level 80, but who want a low-key experience and aren't competitive in a PvP sense of the word. Wow, Sims, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon.

These are two VERY different sorts of players, and they both end up labeled "casual". I think this leads to a lot of confusion in the discussion.

it's great that you think like people with common sense, but the trolls and flamebait you're trying to turn won't accept it.

Shamus Young:
I am more and more convinced we need better terminology.

There are "casual" players who like games that are easy to learn and can be played in 20-minute stretches. Bejeweled, Peggle, those item-hunt games, LEGO games, puzzle pirates.

There are also "casual" players like the ones elvor0 just mentioned, who will work a character in WoW up to level 80, but who want a low-key experience and aren't competitive in a PvP sense of the word. Wow, Sims, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon.

These are two VERY different sorts of players, and they both end up labeled "casual". I think this leads to a lot of confusion in the discussion.

So then I ask you, Mr. Young. How would you classify me?

I play games, I play them simply to play them. I am not competitive in the least. I do not devote my life to the hobby. I enjoy a game for what it is, a way to spend my spare time and a personal challenge as well. However, I am not interested in playing Bejeweled, Peggle or Wii Sports because I find them ungratifying and underwhelming games. Too simple to hold my interest for longer then a minute.

I do not go to tournaments. I see no point in coughing up $5 to have some twitchy, propeller-headed gamer kick my ass and laugh about it. I take interest in a good story and take interest in good game play. I'll break the game if I feel it's worth my time, but it usually isn't.

You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

Honestly, I think this entire casual gamer war started because people were (rightfully so) butthurt about Nintendo essentially giving them the middle finger. But, I don't think it's fair that it's turned into something spiteful and elitist.

peachy_keen:
Honestly, I think this entire casual gamer war started because people were (rightfully so) butthurt about Nintendo essentially giving them the middle finger. But, I don't think it's fair that it's turned into something spiteful and elitist.

I think you have a very good point when discussing the reaction to the Wii, but the snubbing of casual games/gamers in general by the self-declared "hardcore" predates the Wii by years... and alas always was spiteful and elitist, sadly.

-- Steve

johnx61:
You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

:)

I always wondered why Nintendo didn't make the Wii a bit more graphically pleasing.
Would it really have raised the price so much?

If you've ever played The Godfather on the Wii, then I think you know what I mean. Great game, shame about how everything looked.

That seems to sum up every game on the system, actually. Now, I'm not some elitist who thinks everyone needs to know what a graphics card is and that if you don't know, BURN IN HELL!

No, but having things look a little prettier on the Wii would definitely improve the experience.

Oh and the Wii-mote IS a gimmick. There's no hiding that.

Shamus Young:

johnx61:
You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

:)

Now you're just being juvenille.

I agree with some of your points but still...

Firstly, those old school NES games are NOT equivalent to Bejeweled/Peggle etc. and I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. 1. DIFFICULTY CURVE (basically starts high and stays there usually). and 2. That was all that was possible back then. That's not to say flash based and other basic games aren't fun, but the older consoles were doing what they could with the technology they had at the time.

Secondly, I don't feel the Wii opens players up to new experiences and games...not just because of the quantity of shovelware but the lack of anything else. Even when they aren't buying shovelware, they cling to the familiar stuff (Mario, etc.) which isn't particularly challenging or fresh. Another good example of this is No More Heroes...a pretty easy to play game, and won a few Wii GOTY awards last year, and it dropped to $20 within a few months.

"They will then begin to look for new fare, greater depth, and more challenge, and some of them will end up joining us here in the world of quick time events, experience points, and space marines."

That is a fairly broad assumption, especially based on the number of people buying the Wii and only playing Wii Sports.

And the comment about the Wii being more affordable is just ridiculous. It may start out with all you need for 1 player in the basic kit, and games may be slightly cheaper, but that is still more than an Arcade Xbox360 and 360s/PS3s don't have half the accessory/necessory costs.

The 360 has managed to strike a good balance by offering quite a few easier and more casual experiences, the PS3 is trying to and somewhat getting there, but the Wii is a complete sellout; if it was a music artist, it'd be laughed off stage by their early fans. Some argue that "Oh but it's introduced so many more people to gaming.". I would argue it had only introduced them to mini gaming, or perhaps casual gaming, then told them "Yep, this is as good as it ever gets. You'll never get any better than this. By the way, The Adventures of Lame-O in Suck World II is out...". And that is just as easily achieved by having them bored out of their skulls and playing a flash game (for free I might add) online. But what I'm more afraid of is it ruining a future generation of gamers unable to cope when faced with real games so they go decide to do something healthier...Or that Microsoft and Sony might get the same idea and sell out too (though hopefully one or the other will retain the common sense to either strike a more reasonable balance or just not do it at all).

Although it would mean less 12 year olds on Xbox Live.

I enjoyed this article very much so. Now that the developers know the wii is the champion, expect to see actual development time devoted to it rather than just dumping shovelware on the console.

I think console gamers who consider themselves 'real gamers' are redonkulas anyway... everyone knows real gamers use the PC.

hurr i luv rome total war hurr

0:)

Booze Zombie:
I always wondered why Nintendo didn't make the Wii a bit more graphically pleasing.
Would it really have raised the price so much?

Yes.

Not directly, not for the hardware, I agree; but the software development costs would've risen, because of the additional work needed for graphic assets in the titles, and that'd make the games more expensive to make. (Which would probably up the retail price, because I can't imagine them being willing to eat a cut in their profit margins.)

Nintendo came right out and said they weren't going to run in the HD race... looks like it's working for them, so they made the right decision at least in their target market.

-- Steve

johnx61:

Shamus Young:

johnx61:
You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

:)

Now you're just being juvenille.

I'm not sure what you want from me. I pointed out that two different types of gamers were both called "casual", which often confuses the discussion. Then you came in and demanded that I define you as a gamer. The only person who can do that is you.

johnx61:

Shamus Young:
I am more and more convinced we need better terminology.

There are "casual" players who like games that are easy to learn and can be played in 20-minute stretches. Bejeweled, Peggle, those item-hunt games, LEGO games, puzzle pirates.

There are also "casual" players like the ones elvor0 just mentioned, who will work a character in WoW up to level 80, but who want a low-key experience and aren't competitive in a PvP sense of the word. Wow, Sims, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon.

These are two VERY different sorts of players, and they both end up labeled "casual". I think this leads to a lot of confusion in the discussion.

So then I ask you, Mr. Young. How would you classify me?

I play games, I play them simply to play them. I am not competitive in the least. I do not devote my life to the hobby. I enjoy a game for what it is, a way to spend my spare time and a personal challenge as well. However, I am not interested in playing Bejeweled, Peggle or Wii Sports because I find them ungratifying and underwhelming games. Too simple to hold my interest for longer then a minute.

I do not go to tournaments. I see no point in coughing up $5 to have some twitchy, propeller-headed gamer kick my ass and laugh about it. I take interest in a good story and take interest in good game play. I'll break the game if I feel it's worth my time, but it usually isn't.

You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

That merely makes you a casual then, you like decent gameplay and decent game values, great, I'm glad you have fun, its the entitled casuals that gripe me, its the people that want a game to be easy and give rewards to them instantly without every having to put in any effort, want no challenge and care not for the state of things, or if they do its because they are not good enough to beat it.

(That sounded really like "I am the guy who titles people, rawr" trust me it wasn't meant to be intended that way ><)

It's like say.... someone demanding they get payed when they turned up to work but didn't actually do any work, but the industry decides to pay them anyway, and give them a promotion, the hard working guy who enjoys his job is obviously going to get pissed off, given he doesn't get any extra bonus stuff for his hard work, he gets the same as the lazy demanding person.

And it's not just in the world of gaming this exists, lets take Firemen for example:
You used to have to be 6ft-ish, to be a fireman so you could reach ladders and carry people etc etc, however people too small screamed that this was discrimination, and now you have people too short to actually help a team of 6, thus reducing the team size to 5 because the small person is useless. I quite agree "casuals" should have games that are fun, I don't care, its great that more people can get into gaming, that's what gaming is about, having fun. But when it becomes bland and easy to the point where it isn't -fun- that's where the problem is, due to people being "ENTITLED" to see the end game regardless if they're absoloutly terrible at a game, you shouldn't see the end, because it defeats the point of there being challenge if you dont need to overcome it to see whats on the other side of it.

There needs to be some limit to how low you set the difficulty curb, not just where you trip over it ranging to stepping over it, there needs to be new player challenge ranging to hardcore masochistic challenge levels, casuals and hardcores both need to be catered to, but "entitled casuals" can go die in a fire.

Shamus Young:

johnx61:

Shamus Young:

johnx61:
You, sir, claim that we need better terminology. Now's your chance. Where do I fall?

"Pushy".

:)

Now you're just being juvenille.

I'm not sure what you want from me. I pointed out that two different types of gamers were both called "casual", which often confuses the discussion. Then you came in and demanded that I define you as a gamer. The only person who can do that is you.

I don't think "demanded" is quite accurate. "Challenged", would have been a better word. I think we can actually agree that there does need to be better classification. Twitchy hardcore FPS freaks and the Bejeweled/Wii Sports crowd seem to be the two determining factors of the market. Which is a little sad because I think there is quite a large amount of the gaming populace that does not subscribe to either.

evlor0 makes some excellent points. There was another thread in the News forum about difficulty curves being too high in this day and age and that most games need some kind of "Push button, win game" feature. It didn't work for Alone in the Dark, so I don't see why we would need something like that in gaming.

Instant gratification defeats the point of gaming.

I think what does/did piss some people off was the fact, that they excpected something different from the wii, well at least people like me who got bought the wii, without knowing that it would be a casual console.

I wouldn't bother wasing money on casual games, seeing as i i can play them for free on the interwebz, and i didn't find wii sports interesting for more than a few hours, but whatever, i don't loose money because someone else pays for bejeweled.

For a while i was kinda pissed. i can live with the wii beeing graphically inferior to 360/ps3 because if u actually care about the game and not the shiny-factor the graphics are not limitating the wii games, just like i don't think dvds have gotten worse because blu-ray is visually better (though i would ofcourse watch blu-ray over dvd if it wasn't for the fact that i had to pay shitloads of money for a 1080p tv, a blu-rayplayer/ps3 and blu-ray movies)
But what pissed me off was the abscense of good non-casual games on the wii.

Now im not really pissed anymore, i've currenty got LoZ:TP (which was a fanboyish reason for picking the wii)mario galaxy, no more heroes and smash brothers: brawl, which in my oppinion are all great games (and red steel which is... less impressive). i'm planning to get force unleashed, and i think deadly creatures and madworld looks exciting as well, so between work, friends, girlfriend, other hobbies, more work and other stuff i actually have more games than i have time to play, i haven't even gotten to crack open the copy of metroid prime: corruption i picked up cheaply half a month ago.

I've got friends who's got the PS3, and they don't have shitloads of good titles either, because most of the games for the PS3 are also quite bad, especially when compared to the good PS3 games, I wouldn't wanna buy 5 different space marine FPS games, becasue frankly i find most single player FPS's quite booring (also i don't like most analog stick fps, PC FTW), and i prefer to stick with a few multiplayer-games at a time, since i usually end up spending countless hours on multiplayer games, and i just don't have time to play countless hours x5 (currently most of my game-time is spend playing DotA)

Back to the wii, another thing that bothers me is the wii-mote... when i got teh wii i was as excited about it as cartman in the cartoon wars dual episode of South park (freezez himself to get past the w8-time b4 the wii comes out) but i just don't see it living up to it's pottential, though i'm still hoping force unleashed is good, getting it soon.
Instead of using it apropriately, it has become just another button, for instance,
"get out of this hole in the ground - shake the wii mote
do a backflip roundhouse-strike - shake nunchuck
backflip over barbed wire while throwing a hatched midair and hitting ur target - join spetznas... oh w8, that has nothing to do with the wii...

I liked how the wii-more works in LoZ:TP, u use it to swing ur sword, use it to aim with your bow, it's mostly there when it needs to be there, and not just OH it's a wii game, make sure to cram as much wii-mote-wanking in as possible. i also hope/think that that's the case with force unleashed, seeing as the wii controllers are BEGGING to be used for lightsabers/swords and spells/force-powers

also, i read somewhere that sega was planning on making wii-games more appealing to the hardcore crowd and not really care about casual games (easy games) and fammily-friendly games, which basicly means games stripped of any sort of violence so the little kids can play them without mommy suing.
Just look at the prewievs og madworld, u'll know what i mean.

In the end i guess my point is that there are good games for the wii, and i don't think the wii will end up beeing a no-go consule for any1 not casual.

Joeshie:
Sorry, but I was never a casual gamer.

However, I don't know where you get the idea that any of the new wave of casual gamers is going to actually jump to more involvement with gaming. Most of the new casual gamers, (moms, wives, grandpa, etc.) won't ever make that jump to more complex and superb games because they just don't care enough. They view gaming as an occasional diversion, not a worthwhile hobby. The only people I can see as making the jump are kids in the age range of (3-10), which the Wii is very popular with. The kind of gamers that the Wii appeals to will continue to buy shitty shovelware titles because very few of them will make the jump to actually try and find good games.

Who gives a crap? OH NO! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AS MUCH AS WE DO! THEY ONLY PLAY VIDEO GAMES SOMETIMES! THEY SUCK!

ShredHexus:

Joeshie:
Sorry, but I was never a casual gamer.

However, I don't know where you get the idea that any of the new wave of casual gamers is going to actually jump to more involvement with gaming. Most of the new casual gamers, (moms, wives, grandpa, etc.) won't ever make that jump to more complex and superb games because they just don't care enough. They view gaming as an occasional diversion, not a worthwhile hobby. The only people I can see as making the jump are kids in the age range of (3-10), which the Wii is very popular with. The kind of gamers that the Wii appeals to will continue to buy shitty shovelware titles because very few of them will make the jump to actually try and find good games.

Who gives a crap? OH NO! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AS MUCH AS WE DO! THEY ONLY PLAY VIDEO GAMES SOMETIMES! THEY SUCK!

Which has caused the quality of video games to decline because they don't care about the quality. That is why I despise "entitled casuals" not Casuals.

elvor0:

ShredHexus:

Joeshie:
Sorry, but I was never a casual gamer.

However, I don't know where you get the idea that any of the new wave of casual gamers is going to actually jump to more involvement with gaming. Most of the new casual gamers, (moms, wives, grandpa, etc.) won't ever make that jump to more complex and superb games because they just don't care enough. They view gaming as an occasional diversion, not a worthwhile hobby. The only people I can see as making the jump are kids in the age range of (3-10), which the Wii is very popular with. The kind of gamers that the Wii appeals to will continue to buy shitty shovelware titles because very few of them will make the jump to actually try and find good games.

Who gives a crap? OH NO! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AS MUCH AS WE DO! THEY ONLY PLAY VIDEO GAMES SOMETIMES! THEY SUCK!

Which has caused the quality of video games to decline because they don't care about the quality. That is why I despise "entitled casuals" not Casuals.

While I understand your complaint, the problem that I see with it is that the sense of entitlement is not restricted to "casual" gamers. Many "hardcore" gamers can be just as guilty of having a sense of entitlement and force changes that create a ruinous experience for the larger population of gamers. Any time one singular group feels that it's desires and preferences supersede those of any other, problems and conflicts are likely to arise.

As per your example from World of Warcraft, from my own experiences with World of Warcraft, your real problem is skilled versus unskilled players, not "hardcore" versus "entitled casuals". I've seen plenty of "hardcore" WoW players, in the sense that they play 8+ hours per day, have very little skill with the game as a whole, especially during raids.

Singling out raids, in my experience, much of the problem during raids is due the fact that nowadays people often level grind straight to the end-game and miss all the group/teamwork training they needed in the 5-man dungeons. Then they get in the raid and fail miserably because they never learned the skills needed to succeed in the raid. These same players then whine and complain for easier content. This is a phenomenon that is independent of the player being "hardcore" or "casual"; although, I tended to see more "hardcore" players fast level-grind to the end-game.

elvor0:

ShredHexus:
Who gives a crap? OH NO! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AS MUCH AS WE DO! THEY ONLY PLAY VIDEO GAMES SOMETIMES! THEY SUCK!

Which has caused the quality of video games to decline because they don't care about the quality. That is why I despise "entitled casuals" not Casuals.

Myth.

The quality of video games is not declining. There have always been crapware, mediocre tie-in titles, broken games shoved out the door and ignored... it's just that the old ones have been forgotten while the new ones are still present.

I'd argue that it's the jadedness, nostalgia, and verbosity of hardcore fans that has increased.

-- Steve

I consider myself a casual gamer. I want a game that offers challenge and mastery with ability and practice, without having to grind 1000 hours to gear up. This we saw in the early days of computer gaming, with video arcades, and then computer titles that followed that design philosophy. Now, it's often just gear that determines the outcome of combat, or random button mashing.

Anton P. Nym:

elvor0:

ShredHexus:
Who gives a crap? OH NO! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AS MUCH AS WE DO! THEY ONLY PLAY VIDEO GAMES SOMETIMES! THEY SUCK!

Which has caused the quality of video games to decline because they don't care about the quality. That is why I despise "entitled casuals" not Casuals.

Myth.

The quality of video games is not declining. There have always been crapware, mediocre tie-in titles, broken games shoved out the door and ignored... it's just that the old ones have been forgotten while the new ones are still present.

I'd argue that it's the jadedness, nostalgia, and verbosity of hardcore fans that has increased.

-- Steve

Halo Franchise lorded as one of the best games evar evar. Which it isn't by merit of its own genre as opposed to my own opinion, sure I enjoyed Halo but it was average at best. Expectations are declining perhaps then.

I dunno, RPGs dont feel epic anymore, I enjoyed my old FFs that I could pour 100s of hours into and still not get bored, but RPGs dont seem to have connectable characters in them anymore, and they seem less epic and shorter (Fable 2 I'm looking at you, you bastard Peter Molenoux and your Stephen Fry shooting the last "Boss" once to kill him) FPS don't seem to have innovation and the Wii is not using it's technology like it should be.

Shamus Young:
Wii Are the Champions

Despite what you may think, casual gamers are not the embodiment of evil. After all, you were once a casual gamer yourself.

Read Full Article

I disagree with the notion that old games are the equivalent of today's casual games. The concepts and controls were easy but the games were immensly difficult!

Though I do agree with you, we shouldn't hate the casual games. Cash cows like casual games enhance investment in development. If a developer has a steady franchise that sells well they are more able to spend resources on new ideas and titles.

I think what a lot of gamers assume is that games which would likely have been made just for the regular market about five years ago now look to include this 'casual' market. Games like Fable 2 and Prince of Persia; these titles seem oversimplified to many regular gamers.

On a seperate note I would like to say that I deplore people using the word 'retard', it's completely inappropriate and not acceptable language in normal society. You certainly wouldn't say it at work.

The attitude of 'hardcore' gamers speaks volumes about them. They come across as a group of immature and socially awkward people.

"Elitists"? "Casual gamers war"? What the frick are you guys talking about?

Seriously, does any of this kind of thing even exist outside of this forum? You seem to be making a huge deal out of a problem that doesn't exist anywhere I've seen in the real world. And I've been to LAN parties too.

Once again, WHO'S supposed to be "elitist"? Gamers? Not any that I've met...

TheMadDoctorsCat:
"Elitists"? "Casual gamers war"? What the frick are you guys talking about?

Seriously, does any of this kind of thing even exist outside of this forum? You seem to be making a huge deal out of a problem that doesn't exist anywhere I've seen in the real world. And I've been to LAN parties too.

Once again, WHO'S supposed to be "elitist"? Gamers? Not any that I've met...

The war is very real, u just have to open your eyes

Just the other day me and 2 friends where jumped by a group casuals outside the local gamestop store, they attacked with sharpened bejeweled discs, we had to defend ourselves. Luckily we we're strapped as always, and could deflect most of the discs with our logitec g15 keyboards, thogh I took a nasty cut to the leg.
We franticly grapped the stores display guitar hero gutars and tried to cut our way out, the casuals fell to our blows like trees to a canadian lumberjack, but they kept coming.
The store echoed with their warcries "NERF! HAXX! IMBALANCE!!!!" it was hell on earth.
In the end we found ourselves exhausted and had to flee the store. The store is now 23'rd casuals' territory, the store consoles are not running any hardcore games anymore, and i dare not come near.
life has never been the same since, i can't walk donw the street without feeling like im beeing watched, constantly looking over my shoulder

So open your eyes and stop beeing ignorant, theres a war going on, people are getting fragged every day. i ask everyone to step up and join the fight, we need every hardcore E-soldier we can get.
Whether you're into fps, rts, mmo or whatever else your game may be, Uncle 1337 needs you!

Launch the crusades Brother Teisjm, for the Emperor!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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