>>323297396 We all start as casuals. Each of us one day realized how ignorant he was about videogames, and tried then to be better at them, or to educate himself at least about the global view of vidya
Some people will stay casuals, but don't care about the label because they only ever played Tetris or some shit and have different hobbies or occupations
This pic represents those who aren't humble, nor conscious of their own ignorance, nor wishing to learn more. They're casuals, as in they will play the few same games and nothing else, or just be interested in vidya culture but not actually play. It'd be fine if they actually spent their time doing some other shit, but they chose not to out of laziness, and their lack of dedication will never let them be anything more than casuals
>>323298235 casual doesn't mean "play for fun in their free time," because that's what the majority of all vidya game players do. Casual means someone who doesn't play anything outside of AAA or extremely hyped titles, can't get into anything deeper than Skyrim because it's either "too hard" or "boring." They just misunderstood the label being applied to them.
Protip: People who care this much about being recognized as a "nerd" aren't really nerds. Likewise, people who care this much about being called "gamers" are more interested in the label than actually playing video games (but that much should be obvious when we're talking about people who play only casually and therefore have no good reason to label themselves in terms of this hobby in which they barely even participate).
"Gamer" is to movie buff as "casual gamer" is to a regular person who occasionally watches a movie. You don't hear regular people calling themselves "casual movie buffs" because that's retarded.
I wouldnt call a cook a chef. I wouldnt call a guy who loves cars a mechanic. I wouldnt call a guy who likes guns a soldier. I wouldnt call a woman who does her make up a stylist. I wouldnt call a guy who csn fix his computer a tech expert.
I hate that being a casual "gamer" is more... accepted than being "hardcore". Idk why, i just do. Gaming is a hobby like any other, but somehow its bad to show appreciation and love and time to it, where as its good to be some shit skrub who is bad at all games and just plays flavor of the month trash.
The answer to your question is "all of the above" because they're all related.
People who only play video games occasionally, to kill time and not in search of any real challenge, are known as casual gamers. Because of the small amount of time they spend playing and the types of games which appeal to them, they are invariably unskilled at video games in general. There are games which pander to this type of player, and these are known as casual games.
>>323300208 Haven't read the rest of the thread, but your analogy is wrong. A casual car driver would nick street signs, accelerate like a bucking bronco, pretend they're driving when they're just a passenger, and drive those little electric kiddie cars. They will then go on to proclaim that they are great drivers and just prefer to suck at driving.
Hardcore drivers would attempt to do the best they have with what they got. Even when they're driving some 300 dollar junker, they will drive well and enjoy it.
well it's pretty much how people can say they're casuals at any activity. Nobody minds if you casually do a thing if you find it fun to do in your spare time.
The problem is when these people start pretending to be the core audience for said activity, and your entire hobby changes to suit those casual people thus making it a shallow and barebones experience and effectively eliminating enthusiasts, which is the equivalent to killing your hobby
The closest example of this that I have is with the boom of gym culture. I'm an avoid lifter myself, have been going at it for almost 5 years. And as social media exploded in popularity, so did the retarded gym culture where people who aren't in shape pretend to always know what they're talking about. The spend hundreds of dollars on gym equipment to never make any real progress. These people all fuel chain gyms, some of which like Planet Fitness are god damn terrible and kill out more serious gyms that aren't part of any chains. It strikes close to home because the local powerlifting gym I used to go to got bought out and now it's a fucking Planet Fitness
Same thing happens in my videogames. I fall in love with a particular game series, but to make it more accessible and cater to what the casuals want it's dumbed down and stripped off its core elements, and now it's no longer the series I fell in love with but just another generic piece of mindless entertainment
For people who like star wars the same thing with the new movie
Any sort of thing you enjoy is butchered once the masses get ahold of it, because they're not real enthusiasts and the market says "if it's successful you just copy it 100 times to cash in on it". Problem is that the product always gets diluted to the point where it becomes almost a parody of itself. Look literally at any thing that's popular and you'll see the same thing
When something becomes popular it usually leads to creative bankruptcy unless the content creators are REALLY smart
There's nothing wrong with being a casual as long as you don't pretend you're not a casual.
I mean, I'm a casual star wars fan. I liked the original movies, the prequels weren't good but the new one looks neat (haven't seen it yet.) I like the occasional game I guess. But I don't pretend I know any of the deeper lore or the books or the cartoons or the background characters from the movies or anything to that effect. I don't pretend to be hardcore into Star Wars.
No I want you people to clearly, concisely come up with what it means to be a 'casual' at gaming because some people say it's the type of games you play (which has no relation to time invested or skill needed), your skill (which has a little relation to time spent, but little relation to types of games) and some say it's time spent (which can have 0 relation to skill and no relation to types of games).
>>323301279 This, it's perfectly fine to be a fan of something at a casual level but don't go around spouting that you're an expert or super dedicated on the subject which will just annoy the more hardcore fans. It's like that girl on the King of the Nerds bullshit that went around saying how much of a expert on videogames she was but when there was a challenge quiz about videogames she lost on the very first question about who created Pac Man.
Being a casual is not about what games you play, its about your mindset.
I'd call myself a casual fighting game fan. I never get deep into them beyond just kinda messing around. I am not a "hardcore" fighting game fan because I played Continuum Shift Extend or Xrd or Arcana Heart 3 or any other things normalfags have never heard of a few times.
>>323297396 It's great being a hardcore gamer if you have the time, it's a great feel you get when you manage to master a difficult game. I don't have time for it now since I have a job and responsibilities and the free time I do have I spend playing my guitar and programming. I now see the appeal of casual games though.
Do what makes you happy /v/, and remember the majority of people who talk shit about hardcore gamers are the same people who spend hours on Netflix and Facebook instead of trying to master something.
The truth is that they're lazy people who don't understand that something is more rewarding if you put effort in. They derive shitty levels of enjoyment from things they easymode through, treating games as disposable junk food. That's why the gaming industry is full of crappy, short, unremarkable games.
>>323302026 Depends, if the split is exactly 50/50 between two things and the total hours seem to be enough, then they could be considered.
Take some people I know for example, he plays lots of call of duty and guild wars 2, but he also plays club soccer, works out and shoots guns/hunts. I'd consider him a sort of a casual but he does play games a lot, so that's middle of the ground.
If someone only played mobile games while they were in their free time like on breaks or inbetween classes or some shit, but considered themselves a non-casual then there is a problem.
>>323300706 Being a "hardcore gamer" is more like being a cinephile these days. Everyone plays games now so the distinction between casual and hardcore is gone. We once looked down on casual gamers because they were trying to horn in on our racket but only really liked a couple select games. Like the kid who claimed to be a gamer but only played Madden. People playing games now don't even call themselves gamers. They aren't casuals, They're just people. Ask any random person if they are a gamer and they will probably say "no, but I really like that ______".
So I say we drop the "hardcore" shit. Let's just refer to ourselves as gamers now. Most of the people who /v/ considers casuals have just as much a claim to the title as anyone else.
This is what happens when a hobby becomes universally accepted.
>>323302193 This, even the game industry uses casual to classify certain types of games. Such as people who want games that can be played casually. In fact, they invented it. These dumb fags trying to be oh-so-smart-above-it-alls forget /v/ took it from the industry itself.
>>323301969 Just wanna pop in and say that I like you. It's healthy for the mind to play devil's advocate from time to time, even when it makes you look like a complete asshole. I appreciate it, we don't get enough of that.
I don't have a problem with casual "gamers", what I have a problem with is those same people coming in here trying to argue their shit game as a GOTY while they really haven't played shit and can't even judge what's good and what isn't based on their lack of experience Example for this would be, for someone that's never played an FPS in their life, BioShock Infinite is probably heaven on earth while it's really a huge pile of shit
>>323300773 >People who only play video games occasionally, to kill time and not in search of any real challenge
I worked with a guy that was dead set on buying a PS4 to play madden and only madden. He hadn't touched video games in 3 years since I asked him what he last played. These people are real, I thought they were a lie and yeah, he was black if it matters. I don't even know why these people exist, the world is strange in that way.
I don't wholly agree with your definition of casual but they are out there.
>>323302810 Is it really that simple? What if someone plays one game, but it's not just a generic flavor of the month AAA game.
What if there was a person who played a shitload of Dwarf Fortress, and exclusively Dwarf Fortress. Would they be a casual gamer since they only play one game? I'd hardly consider one game to be "deep" into a hobby.
You're arguing from a position where none of you can come up with a clear definition of what a 'casual' gamer is. Mostly because it's all based on personal opinion from a bunch of shut-in nerds (perhaps the most opinionated group of people on the face of the Earth barring ISIS).
The best part is that you're all just fucking each other up over what a casual gamer actually is because none of you wants to think YOU are one, so you have to define it as something you're not.
I bet if we got right down to it most of you people would be defined as a 'casual gamer' by one another. Hi-larious.
>>323303034 >What if someone plays one game, but it's not just a generic flavor of the month AAA game. Still not a gamer. That wouldn't be going very deep into gaming would it? To play one game. you wouldn't buy a bookshelf for one book.
>I'd hardly consider one game to be "deep" into a hobby. Exactly.
I'd like to clarify I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I personally agree with the general sentiment in this thread that it's something you just sort of "feel" out. But when I was arguing with some people they were pressing me about what makes someone "casual" or not, and whether that matters as long as they enjoy the medium.
I'll admit, I felt a bit at a loss. I didn't know how to answer the argument in a constructive way.
Generally, and I've never really cared about the distinction myself, but as other anons have pointed out, a casual is just someone who plays casually, same as if someone wasn't overly concerned with films might go to the movies every now and then, but they certainly aren't film-buffs or movie nerds or whatever.
I think the issue people have with this is that for a long time games were considered more of a niche as a hobby, probably from their history as kids toys and having to fuck around with computers for early pc games. The last couple of gens we've really seen a huge growth in 'casual' gamers as the hobby becomes more mainstream, but public opinion still hasn't caught up, so gaming is sometimes seen as a nerdy activity even though 'playing CoD' isn't. This means people don't neccessarily recognise themselves as casual because they think gaming itself is niche and thus they are invested in it simply by partaking (generally beyond just your average CoD and sports games, but still only mainstream releases like Skyrim, etc.)
I think casual as a pejorative is pretty common among a lot of different hobbies though, probably due to the market favouring casuals as they're a larger market, which often simplifies design and draws funding from the more 'hardcore' versions the hobbyists would prefer (see: Michael Bay, Uwe Boll). It's probably worse in video games as I imagine casuals are probably worse in competitive games, and with the consoles being held up by 'casuals' and the fact that a high end PC will outperform a console, it's reasonable to say casuals are holding back gaming more than other hobbies. Personally, I think casual is a dumb insult to be used seriously, as every industry has them, and it's unfair to say the industry would be better off without them as they inevitably draw in a lot o funds.
The difference between a casual gamer and a hardcore gamer is that a casual gamer doesn't really care about games and wouldn't want to hold a long conversation about games with a video game nerd. My aunt loves playing candy crush but she doesn't talk to me about video games. A hardcore gamer is the people who actually likes and discusses video games.
That's how I always thought about it. You'd ask a person about video games and they either say "Oh I'm not really much of a gamer" or you hold a conversation with them about video games, the culture of video games, video game news, etc because they actually care about that shit. It's a measure of how much you care about video games.
>>323302502 But that's the problem if everyone is a "gamer" no one is. It loses all meaning.
I wouldn't call someone who plays only shooter games a "gamer", no matter how much they play them or how good they are at them. They might love those games, sure, but they aren't a gamer.
A gamer is someone who plays all games. Console games, PC games, handhelds (phone or otherwise), etc. Reads about games, talks about games, watches video about games, etc.
People who go to the movies each week (or every 2 weeks or whatever), aren't "cinephiles" they're just people who are going to the movies. Someone who truly loves movies would have a huge collection of them, read about them online, probably has an interest in going to school for it, etc.
>>323303091 It's really simple actually. As has been conveniently ignored in the thread, what a surprise, the whole casual label came about because the industry it self uses it. The most common definition seems to be
A) You don't play these games that are literally labeled by their publishers or creators as for the casual market
B) You play enough games where you can be called the game equivalent of a movie buff
>>323303387 >I actually prefer to play with "normal" people over the "hardcore" guys That depends on the type of game you want to play, I wouldn't even consider calling my normie friends to play Red Orchestra or ARMA
>>323297396 People who give you shit for enjoy (as long as it isn't weird as fuck) are unlikable people who you should disregard their opinion because they usually have nothing going for them and are miserable thus feel the need to shit on other peoples opinions.
The way I see it the time you spend playing video games or if you do it as a hobby or professionally is all irrelevant. What sets apart casuals from real human beans is the fact that no matter how much time they spend playing, they will not get better and they do not want to get better. They stick to their casual games and anything outside their comfort zone is intimidating to them. This is most people. What most people should be like however is not be afraid of a little complexity and challenge and find depth of gameplay more rewarding than instant gratification wish fulfillment where you are great and all the NPC's love you.
>>323303285 >I'll admit, I felt a bit at a loss. I didn't know how to answer the argument in a constructive way.
I'll help you here. First, go drink some fiber cause you sound gay, even on text. Now that you have testosterone in you, be ready to shit talk cause that's what people like.
Look them in the eye and tell them "You're a casual if you don't even keep informed on good games" period. I know the stories to Halo, Dark Souls, Uncharted, Last of US, games I've never touched. A hardcore gamer likes all games, even if he doesn't play them.
>>323302958 When I was 20 I played phantasy star online for 21 hours straight trying to level up to 100 or whatever max level was. I've never thought of myself as a hardcore gamer but I was pretty hardcore into that game for a while. I've continued to buy games regularly throughout the years but life and work means I don't finish most of them. I'm ok with being thought of as a casual.
So if you play any game that is labeled as casual, you're now a casual? No matter the time invested? What if you go home and play <hardcore game> for 5 hours but play some candycrush on the bus to pass the time? Does that mean you're a casual because you played a game marketed towards the casual market?
And I would think that people who only play 'hardcore' games would be offended to be paired up with people who are just videogame-buffs.
Do you see why you people are fucking retarded yet?
>>323297396 Gamedev here. Everyone who i've ever seen at cons and had talked to who identified themselves as "gamers" were giant pieces of shit. Doesn't matter if it was some tumblrina who's only played windwaker halfwy through or a big manchild who tries to get you all to youreslf to demonstrate their intricate knowledge of gaming by talking about his favorite games for hours while reeking of cheese. They're all the same. Trash. If anything "grill gamers" and "dudebros" and "totes cod gamer brah" are better since they tend to read books/watch movies/be into music more ofthen than narrow minded "muh hardcore gamer" faggots.
TL;DR going up to people and saying "I'm a gamer" is like going up to people and saying "i'm a fag deal wit it" or "i'm a cuck"
The problem is that the distinction between "non-casual" and "casual" gamer is incredibly subjective, and no one can come up with a firm definition. Even if we, in this thread, all agree on something, it's not going to matter.
Ultimately, people don't want to be classified as a casual gamer despite how true it is, because it's considered a negative thing. So everyone moves the goal post around to suit there personal opinion.
>>323303863 >Do you see why you people are fucking retarded yet? If you weren't so retarded you'd realize that all of the definitions given complement each other. You're a casual if: >You play only one game, no matter how much >You play popular games only, no matter how much
Casuals and Hardcores do exist, even though I wouldn't call the latter either hardcore or real gamers or whatever the name is. A casual is one who enjoy games in his free time not as a hobby but as a time killer. People who play Farmville or Angry Birds are like that. But if you own a console or a gaming PC (or just play full games because you like them) you are indeed the second type. Pic related.
>>323303863 Are you autistic? When I say "you don't play casual games" I obviously don't mean that if you play a single one of those games that you are casual. Just that if those are the games you mainly play then you are casual.
I shouldn't have had to explain that.
You can't seriously think that's what I said unless your entire reason for posting ITT is to argue, right?
>>323303863 >>So if you play any game that is labeled as casual, you're now a casual? No. If you exclusively play casual games you are casual gamer. >No matter the time invested? Yes. >What if you go home and play <hardcore game> for 5 hours but play some candycrush on the bus to pass the time? It is not like being gay. Playing a casual game is not like fucking a dude. It doesn't make you a casual. If anything a hardcore gamer would try out almost all games to access them by himself. >And I would think that people who only play 'hardcore' games would be offended to be paired up with people who are just videogame-buffs. Offense depends on the person and who is insulting. Like being called retarded by a retard wouldn't insult me in the slightest. >Do you see why you people are fucking retarded yet? Exactly like that insult for example. I feel more like a bully arguing with you honestly.
>>323304408 Yes, exactly. Because I'm talking about a gamer status, not autis, status. If you play a single game you're interested in that particular thing instead of the whole genre, which is the definition of a "real" gamer. They might be more dedicated/autistic, but their taste in games (which directly relates to gamer "status") is limited. Now stop being retarded
If one video is lined with propaganda, then so are the others, because it's their personal view point. Enjoy what you want but be cognizent enough to realize when people are pushing their ideals on you.
I don't know man, I've gone to plenty of cons too and I don't see why /v/ insists upon this black and white thinking. I've met great people from all camps. Nobody is perfect and an exact copy of yourself. I met this chill bro at e3 who has similar taste in vidya as me and is fun to hang around with, BUT I once heard him call himself a 'gamer' in front of other people, the horror. Admittedly I don't much care for the word either but it didn't exactly break the friendship.
Yes. The "hardcoreness" of the game apparently doesn't matter. If it's one and only one game that you play for any amount of time, you're a casual.
I think the general consensus I'm getting from this thread by having been here for way too long is that it's not so much about what games you play and how much you play them (though that is a factor) it's more about how passionate about videogames as a medium you are.
If you answer yes to "would you want to talk about videogames for a few hours without playing any" then you're not a casual. Probably.
>>323304382 Gamedev matters because I stand at cons and have people walk up and talk to me
But yeah, i'm not even a gamer, I barely play shit since i'm too busy working towards my dreams and trying to make others have enjoyable experiences instead of assholes who lock themselves in, eat funions, cheese and diet coke all day, hotglue figurines and buy games with taxpayer money and they still think their brilliant ideas need to be implemented but if they are not it's the trash of the century.
I'm not the only one. Devs are usually normalfags. Remember that.
>this entire thread >trying to define the term casuals
Look at all these newfags. Being casual is only a term to insult a person and has no deeper meaning.
The fuck do you think most of /v/ was made off before you normalfaggots tagged along. Most were neckbeards that played vidya all day long and called each other casuals if you were just shit at a game or boss to male fun pf someone. Its not a term to describe how much someone played vidya
I consider myself a casual. I don't play a lot as I've gotten older, and what little I do is either with friends or it's in my favorite genres. But even then, many of my close friends consider me to be a more serious gamer, solely because I still keep up with the industry and I enjoy learning who's working on what projects and hearing about people leaving studios for whatever reason, and I look forward to the contributions that they make towards the medium, even though I won't buy more than 2 new games this year.
>>323303502 >Someone who truly loves movies would have a huge collection of them
I want to say that this isn't necessarily true. I love movies, I love going to the movies, I love discussing the ins and outs of movies with other people that also love movies. The only DVDs/BDs I own are those that have been given to me as gifts, with maybe two exceptions. The same is true of anime and TV. I absolutely and completely love watching shit. But, I don't like having physical media around for visual mediums unless it's one of my favorites.
>>323304847 Nah I know there are different people but still it's fucking terrible seeing people /v/ makes fun of actually exist in everyday life and be actually worse than what they talk about.
I don't feel like that shit deserves celebration, it should go down like fatshaming, racistshaming and whatever. Gotta bully to get the shit habits out and force people to see there's a world outside of sonic.
>>323304986 Not about that one game. He is not a casual player of that one game but a casual gamer in general. Yeah. So yes.
Its like you can't grasp that you can be different levels of casual about different things. You can be a gamer but casual when it comes to music. You can play one game hardcore but be a casual in general
>>323305195 >Casual >a person who does something irregularly.
Someone who plays game regularly no matter the game isn't a casual by the very definition of casual. You want to insult him as a casual? Go ahead. However according to the dictionary he isn't a casual.
>>323304502 No, because of my second criteria. Here's the other thing it's not necessarily a math problem and it's not exclusive to games. It's for all entertainment media. Once you've completed that book, watched that movie, beat that game with a reputation for being hardcore or deep or whatever, it's with you forever. You know the ins and outs, the references, the experience. Playing 10 more hours of some shitty mobile game won't detract from that.
Now we're defining a casual gamer by every game they play? 'Oh He's a super hardcore gamer when it comes to Dwarf Fortress but he's a casual gamer when it comes to anything else." Holy fucking shit you people.
>>323304832 I implore you to watch one of the other ones, and you'll see that it's not just a hardcore left-wing political values show. Obviously they're biased, it's a tv show made by humans. Calling it propaganda is kind of a stretch, but I get what you're saying.
Even though I knew from your first post that you were the kind of person who gets riled up about women playing videogames. Referring to this as propaganda reinforces the fact that you're kind of a pathetic nerd that "shitposts" on /v/ about muhsoggyknee and posts those ridiculous strawman comics, except you're not shitposting because you actually agree with everything you post..
I just see it as a way to try to categorize people depending on how into/enthusiastic they are about the hobby.
This is of course nothing you can measure but that is also the case for all other cultural categorization.
There is of course nothing wrong about having a casual interest in video games, and it is also not wrong to have a casual interest in books.
But if a person goes to a book club and loudly claims to be a lover of books even though the only books the person have read the last ten years are harry potter/ lord of the rings then the other members of the book club will probably doubt your love for books.
In short don't pretend to be something that you are not. Being called a casual is also only a bad thing if you claim that you are not a casual.
>>323304259 going for the car analogy, i would put "hardcore gamer" as a pilot not a driver like >i really like driving, that's my hobby i'm one of the fastest kart driver of my entire city >i'd love to be a F1 pilot, but i don't have the money, the time, nor started early enough for it tho
someone shows up >nice i like driving too! >i drive my son to soccer every weekend
>>323305569 No it is the best example of confirmation bias I have ever seen. You are not trying to understand the people explaining shit to you. You are actively trying to misunderstand their point of view and you are not moving an inch.
It is fine when it comes to something stupid like that but if you keep that shit up IRL then you have a sad life in front of you.
the distinction is between how the game is expected to treat the player, and how the player expects the game to treat them.
Casuals let their personal tastes over-run the point of what a game is, which is a challenge; where there's a winner and a loser. Casuals always want a game to treat them nicely, with easy mechanics, and a shallow learning curve that's easy to get into with no harsh penalties for "losing" (if losing is even possible) so they're able to jump in and out at will with little time spent.
Non-casuals and gamers play games as they come and adapt to deep/broad gameplay mechanics that may take some time to adjust to, and will play for many hours in a day if not the entire day if they're able to.
the problem comes from the economic side of the games industry. casuals will always outnumber the non-casual, so developers are completely forced to appeal their games to casuals in order to stay alive. once upon a time, all games were for gamers because you had to buy special equipment (a computer) and understand it before you could even play a game on it, if a game even existed. and if one didn't exist, you made your own game. BECAUSE YOU ARE A "GAMER"
>>323300336 I would say that yes, "casual" is synonym for someone who plays games that require very low skill level, regardless of how much time they play.
And I think "casual" is insult only to those who play babby's first FPS but consider themselves hardcore. If I told suburban mom who plays candy crush that's she's casual, she probably wouldn't mind. If I told her 13yearold xbox playing CoDfag that he's casual, I would probably get qite different response.
>>323305798 >dwarf fortress is a game >so if someone plays that one everyday he is not just a hardcore dwarf fortress player but a hardcore player of all games >gaming is a hobby >music is a hobby >so if someone is hardcore with that one hobby he is not just a hardcore gamer but also a music enthusiast.
>>323305432 >'Oh He's a super hardcore gamer when it comes to Dwarf Fortress but he's a casual gamer when it comes to anything else." What is so weird about that? Can you not compartmentalize anything?
>>323305984 Casual refers to taste, if you care about a single game you don't care about games in general and you're a casual >>323305991 I don't need a source if they're right though. It's exactly what other people mean when they say you're a casual
>>323306279 >It's exactly what other people mean when they say you're a casual It is what you and only you meant. You fucking casual. Post your steam account, I bet you have less games than I do. Fucking casual.
DF isn't a game, it's a story generator. the "game" behind DF is so easy you can build a wall and "win" immediately... but the story then is quite literally "these dwarves built a wall in their fortress entry and were completely boring pricks to watch doing nothing but farming, brewing, crafting, and popping out babies, all who never had any FUN."
>>323297396 People have no problem in other areas of interest. Someone who goes to cinema for blockbusters is a "movie fan". Someone who regularly visits art houses, hunting for new independent releases is a "movie fan" as well.
Putting an equal sign between both of those is an abuse at every level beyond "both watch movies as a hobby".
But somehow, dividing "people who play games" on "those who play games as a way to spend time" and "those who specifically spend time on playing games" is a blasphemy
The basic distinction found in every field is reliance on gimmicks or on actual features. Likewise, there is a respective distinction among the audience between those with a gimmicky reason for liking what they like and those who have an actual reason.
Of course casuals would deny the existence of casuals because the very reason they're casual is because they don't have an objective reason for their actions, only a subjective one. Every discussion comes down to them simply liking it as if it's just some personal thing that they chose and not something that can truly be better or worse than something else.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that someone can be blind when it comes to how they spend their time and resources out of laziness or ignorance. Yet the loudness of fanboys show they even care more about what people call them than the subject they're defending - out of hypocrisy, they care more about being "real" than those who defend the existence of hardcore fans, which is ironic since that's the opposite of their underlying assumptions.
This is a pattern in many places.
Whenever someone begins to espouse some form of absolute relativism (notice the inconsistency), in culture or anywhere else, it's very likely to become a sort of shield. They can just say it's their opinion and no one can change it, even if they themselves deep down believe it's false.
I'd also like to say that hardcoreness/casualness don't necessarily correlate with time and resources devoted to the things. That partially depends on who the industry thinks is the bigger priority. There are many casuals who spend countless hours playing one game because they're unwilling to acknowledge anything they aren't already interested in. If anything, a "real" player nowadays would probably spend less time and resources on current games in protest of their growing casualization, as casuals spend more and more time. That doesn't automatically raise their status to that of a "real" player.
>>323305901 It's an actual word /v/ took from the game industry because they don't like said industry moving towards marketing and designing games for casual players. /v/ thinks it's a negative change. From its perspective it is not a straightforward insult onto itself but rather that they think casuals are lame people and who should go away.
To use an example.
There's the insult called idiot
and then there's calling someone a stamp collector because you think stamp collectors are lame and should go away.
>>323305984 >By that logic a professional Starcraft player is a casual if they don't play many other games. no you already said his tittle PROFESSIONAL he is a professional gamer, not a casual nor a hardcore (he can be any of those on his free time tho)
It's what I think because it's the logical conclusion of nearly everybody having their own definition of what a casual gamer is. I mean sure it was my original theory but based on the responses it's quite clear that there's a lot of debate over what 'casual' means. Is it being skilled? Only playing hardcore games? Is it general knowledge? There are people actually arguing that someone who makes a LIVING off playing a game can be considered a casual.
>Now lets see how you deal with that
Alright. I never said that everyone redefines casual gamer as someone that they aren't, just that it's a common trend. So really you're trying to argue a point I never made, and you're being smug about it.
>>323306016 It's not an insult if you don't take it at heart, because it means nothing to you.
You just play casually. It's actually more insulting to whoever uses some adjective around, labelling people they don't really care or even affect.
It's like a black guy telling another black man a nigger. They're ok with it. Even white guys saying nigger to a good friend. Words come loaded with intention, and that's the power behind them. But calling someone a "casual"? it's just lame and childish, better just call them a boogerpenis.
>>323306868 >So someone who plays thousands of games but only the RPG genre is a casual as well. God this thread is hilarious for watching people backpedal. no if he only play RPG, and only cared about RPG so yes he is casual, if he at least tried a few genres or watched how they play or read about it a bit before dropping, then no he is not a casual
you know things that other anon keep talking but you keep ignoring, if he CARES ABOUT VIDEOGAMES not only X GAME or X GENRE, or only the only game he gets PAID to play, then he is not a casual
>>323306872 With games in general I mean as a medium, not genres. If you can't appreciate good games that even if they're sports games, racing games, MOBAs (they don't exist though) or grand strategy then yeah you might be a casual
/v/, explain me this: if GG was anti-censorship, anti-corruption and pro-freedom-of-speech and the socjus movement pro-censorship and anti-freedom-of-speech, how come that so many here still hate GG?
Don't you realize that GG is the only movement that's actively fighting for you? Vidya journalism and mainstream media is unrefutably under socjus control and constantly just mock and demean gamers, while at same time pushing for more censorship. You can see the results, DOAX is never arriving in the west now and many games are getting their content butchered. That could have been prevented if you were more willing to work for the right cause but no, you had to go and spit on the hand that protects you.
Does anyone find these discussions kinda amusing when visiting /v7? they're retarded and meaningless, yet, you're so bored that anything will do. They're still meaningless and retarded, but you keep coming here.
Sometimes you see comments of actually heated up people trying to defend flags and view points about these stupidities and wonder why you keep coming around these people.
I just keep coming back and don't know why anymore.
>>323307395 Appreciation really has nothing to do with it. You have to go out of your way to acquire and play games so naturally I gravitate towards titles that I'm more likely to enjoy.
When someone says "this is a really good grand strat" I'm most likely not going to play it because I know it's going to involve hours of working out what half the shit on the screen even means for an experience I most likely won't enjoy.
I will, however, get some esoteric as fuck puzzle game because I most likely will find it rewarding.
Guyz I' play candy crush on my iphone 30min/day it means I'm a gamer just like you , the next Mass Effect should be made for people like me wich means it will be really shitty but I won't buy it because video games like mass effect are for nerds lol. By the way I'm a girl so don't hit on me silly boys : )
It's a measure of everthing that's been mentioned so far. It deals with the type of games you play, how good you are at them, and how much time you put in. It's a measure of how deep you are into the hobby. Stop being willingly retarded and just read what people are telling you
Imo, being a casual is by genre, and heavily depends on you involvement with the game. Skill level itself doesn't indicate casualness, but one's willingness to learn and improve himself is what defines it.
You play angry bird and happen to be good at it but not excel and never try to get better? Casual. You play angry bird and suck hard but try to understand the mechanics properly and improve? Not casual.
You play Doom, CoD, MoH, TF2 a few times, maybe finishing the story if there's one? Casual. You play the same games but try to do pistol-only runs, no death run, stealthy runs, whatever else, and practice it? Not casual.
You play the latest Final Fantasy RPG, mindlessly grind to overlevel the bosses and stop after the main storyline? Casual. You play it but try different tactics, search secrets, min-max your build? Not casual.
Hell that even applies to any for of entertainment. You rent the latest best-seller book, finish it in 3 weeks and return it? Casual. You search for a book you find interesting, read it in a few days then come back and rent the whole bibliography of that author? Not casual. Rent that same book, then go online and discuss it's story, find additional material, ect? Not a casual.
It really boils down to how much you invest yourself in something.
Those who identify as either hardcore or casual ruin our hobby because supposedly hardcore games made by evil AAA companies devalue the term hardcore while casuals remove the necessity of hardcore games altogether.
>>323308635 anon, if you don't wanna a personal definition why would you created this thread, i just gave what you wanted now if you wanna a written definition for a "trustful source" just save us of this shit thread and discussion and lookup on a dictionary
all this ad hominem means that i already own right?
>>323297396 there's nothing wrong with being a casual the problem is when you're a casual, but claim to be a "video game nerd" or whatever, and then get mad when someone asks you to list five zelda games and you can't
>"finding things on our own is difficult!" >quest marker added >"I die too much!" >health packs all over the place/regenerative health >"I don't want to read!" >Yes/No/Sarcastic >"this puzzle is too difficult!" >wait a minute, that card..
So by this definition, you have to be good, you have to play a variety, and you have to invest a lot of time.
There sure are a lot of filthy casuals here then.
Though it is kinda strange that someone can be good at all types of games, but because they have better understanding/hand eye coordination they're not investing enough time to be considered a non-casual.
Threads like these make me glad I lived through the 80's and 90's and can remember the days when gamers wished more people would join the hobby to inject more money into the system so devs could keep making great games. I'm glad I lived through the 00's to see that dream become reality.
And I'm glad to be here with you all, arguing over stuff that was solved long ago. We won, guys.
>>323309681 And I forgot to mention, its not strictly just this type of thing, they can be a non casual if they fill out almost all of the categories well except for one like time, simply because maybe now they can't spend as much time playing
You're trying to simplify something that's a little more complex and has some wiggle room based on the categories
>>323310063 Doesn't feel too bad. I'm going to guess I'm only 15 or 20 years older than you, so I'll only miss out on a couple decades of stuff. And if you're fat you probably won't get to see any more than me anyway.
>>323308379 >>323308362 >>323308526 You are fucking retards. But if i tell you how fucking retarded you are, are you seriously considering it or you just know you aren't?
If you consider it, you'll get offended. Because you are indeed, fucking retards. If anyone calls you a casual and get offended, it's because it implies "casual" is another words for fucking retard, and which indeed you are, fucking retarded, since you're accepting that label since it resonates with your fucking retardedness deep inside your skull.
>>323310973 A word can have a different meaning, or even express something that can't be put into words. For example, me calling you butthurt is just a basic insult for anyone reading this but you; on the other hand, when you read the word "butthurt", you'll take it so deep and personal that you will sperg out in another post
>simply because maybe now they can't spend as much time playing
So a person can forever be a non-casual videogame player if they used to be super into it, but now they aren't because they have other responsibilities? 'Yeah I used to be super into the SNES but recently all I play are cellphone games because I don't have time for anything more.' Sounds more like they USED to be a gamer. There are a lot of these. They 'grew up'.
>You're trying to break something apart when it's more complex
When something is this 'complex' it tends to just be a matter of opinion. A lot of people here (note: not everyone) have their own definition of what a 'casual' gamer is because they've got an agenda (honestly the funniest one is people who define professionals as casual because they're only the best at 1 game). That agenda? Making sure that the people they personally don't like are considered 'casual'. Worrying about someone calling you a 'casual gamer' is pointless because what that person is really saying is 'you're not like me', and that's okay, because that person is very likely a 'casual' as defined by someone else in the hobby.
>>323311660 Your first paragraph is you missing the point again. I specifically said that if they spend that little time still playing noncasual games and are still really into the hobby, just have less time to play now.
The second paragraph is pretty correct, I won't disgaree, but that wasn't really the point at hand. The fact of the matter is that casuals are a thing in every hobby and often lead to the downfall of said hobby because they are the mainstream appeal that people in charge pander to for big bucks. Even if we all disgaree on what exactly makes a casual, we all have a pretty good "feeling" of what one is although that's subjective garbage and doesnt really matter I guess
>>323310274 I bought about 20 games total in 2015 and I enjoyed all of them. I've never had that happen before. And I >>323311156 was one of them.
The biggest problem for me these days is starting games I know I simply don't have the time to finish. A game that takes 60 hours to finish the main quest line is like one of those wet dreams where you never get to finish because you keep getting interupted by a T-rex.
>>323312112 No, because those that want to be called hard-core don't think it's stupid, it's a good thing to be. Some people don't like being called casual, especially in the denigrating context it's said.
>>323297957 Human? Obsessing over things like these are certainly a human trait, but it's more a cultural thing, maybe from the americans. People around the world would see the gay murr culture and just laugh it off and continue with their life.
Defining humanity is a complex thing and we often label our facets to identify them better, but it's still a human measuring in human metrics, and thus subjective, biased around culture and education and ultimately flawed.
I understand absolutely every point people have made in this thread. That's why it's clear that you shouldn't take it to heart when someone calls you a casual because it's just a 'fuck you'. Apparently if you just have a general understanding of videogame titles some people believe that doesn't make you a casual, but yet if you're playing co-op and keep dying one of your team mates will still call you a casual because no matter how broad your knowledge of videogames is, you're 'bad' at them.
So the time investment is optional? Why even bring it up at all as a criteria in your original argument, then? Now it's just that you play noncasual games the majority of the time, and a variety of them.
>The fact of the matter is that casuals are a thing in every hobby and often lead to the downfall of said hobby because they are the mainstream appeal that people in charge pander to for big bucks.
What you're thinking of is 'mainstream', not 'casual'.
>>323312635 But man, it's not denigrating, it's just casual. I play videogames casually. It's an activity to not bore me to death. I play Rocket League casually. I think people could play competitively some game, but it's just a game in the end, and even if you take it seriously, it's still a game and watching it from outside a gaming culture, is still a recreational, casual thing to do.
and that's a subjective point of view we take for each one of us. A scientist finding the cure of cancer would say it's just a stupid ass thing to waste time on. A hardcore gamer would say it's their life and maybe their moneymaker. But the only thing the scientist and the self labeled hardcore gamer have in common is that they're having a self important mission that doesn't overlap and doesn't affect each other, as if they were two worlds apart and actually don't even impact the grand scheme of their world.
>>323313315 Things can be meant as a fuck you and still have a real origin.
If you are fat that is a fact. If somebody calls you fat it might just be a fuck you. Same with casual. Same with faggot same with everything.
You can tell yourself that people calling you something means it is not a problem or ignore them but I don't that makes you a better person in the end. It stops you from improving or seeing yourself for what you truly are.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being a casual to bring it back to the discussion. Its the denial that is pathetic.
A casual in any field will be mocked. If you only listen to dadrock, you will laughed at. If you can only cook mac and cheese, you will be laughed at. If you only play temple run, you will be laughed at. I can see where tumblr is coming from, but the way they present their argument is always so fucking cringy. Every single Tumblr argument:
>>>>This thing sucks >>>Wow, you are so brave and beautiful for saying that this thing sucks >>We are all so brave and beautiful >This
The real trouble here is that most people don't understand what exactly it is that differentiates the non-core, the "casuals", from the core gamers. Not even most of the gamers themselves. And worst of all, especially not marketers.
Casual is a not-so-subtle term for a "retarded" gamer. This is not necessarily true. While they might be bad at games, most people tend to be very skilled or smart in other fields. I wouldn't call a surgeon a casual gamer, because I know that he is quite smart, he just doesn't spend a lot of time on video games and therefore hasn't developed the skill or appreciation for them like myself. So instead, those who only play games once in awhile as a time-waster instead of a full blown hobbyist, I call "non-core".
The reason why there is such a huge upset for the core gamers that non-core gamers are 'invading' the hobby is quite simple.
Imagine that you play chess. You LOVE chess. You play at least 2 or 3 games a day, and all of your reading material you have is related to chess in some way. You love to spend hours practicing the game and you no longer have anywhere to go. All the people around you barely play, and when they do, it's like you're playing a child. So you find out about a convention near by with lots of people coming in for chess, and you think "Wow! Finally, I'll be able to meet people like me!"
Then you get there, and you meet someone who claims to love the game just as much as you do! This is great! Then you play them and discover that they can't hold a flame to you, and don't even know the most basic of terms or rules like Castling or En Passant. They only came because they played chess with their dad once or twice and wanted to relive those memories.
The sheer frustration from that huge let down is quite painful. Yet, when you complain about how they don't put in nearly as much love into the game as you do and have no right to be at a convention for chess lovers like you do, they call YOU the enemy.
And it's not so much that its optional, its that it should be taken into consideration. It's not a binary thing that defines a casual, but it is part of the process. I'm sorry that you still cannot grasp this
>>323316928 Just because someone is a surgeon doesn't stop them from being a retard when it comes to videogames. I honestly don't know how you come to the conclusion that because someone is "smart" in a field that doesn't even have to be related to vidya he can't be a casual.
>>323316928 >>323317313 You and the marketers then are associating casual with retards and it does not have a direct co relation but just similar needs.
That's guilt by association.
I might be a casual because i don't have the time to play Europa Universalis. Neither do you. That doesn't make you a retard.
A retard is someone that plays LoL and still fucks up simple things. Plays HotS and still can't figure out the basics of the game like "don't wander off as a healer you're doing jack shit" after 50 games.
And that game is pretty fucking straightforward as hammer and nails.
>>323306825 >White male Mushroom Kingdom citizen reaches first place through determination, skill and hard work >Lazy, unskilled, layabout jungle ape gets given a blue shell and wins anyway, even though he dindu nuffin
>>323317313 Again, it's because casual is just a proxy for retard that I don't like using it. Which is why so many non-core gamers hate it when you call them casual, because they KNOW what it actually means.
Yeah, you can be retarded at games, sure, but there's no need to call them retarded, directly or indirectly.
>>323317446 I almost went with knitting or book reading for my example.
>>323317812 >That's guilt by association. No, that's just making an observation. If you look at any game that's been dubbed as "casual", you're going to find that the game is treating you like an actual retard. Dumbed down controls, over explaining things that are simple even to non-core gamers, enemies that don't even enter into attack animations half the time, etc. The games they make for their "casual" market can only really be described as retards.
>I might be a casual because i don't have the time to play Europa Universalis. Neither do you. That doesn't make you a retard. You casually play a game, and it does not make you a retard at all. You're right on this. However, the term casual hasn't been used as a positive since 2005 when microsoft first used it to insult nintendo's audience.
>>323316426 What are you talking about? The convention actually is where the hardcore chess players would be. You enter the tournament and play against other serious players instead of talking to the first person you meet only to find she's some teenager's mom providing a ride.
The "casual" thing that annoys people in gaming would be like if they re-released chess every few years and they kept streamlining the game to make it more accessible and to get more people to buy it. You were smart enough to play the original game, but the casual audience needs their hands to be held so when the game is bent towards them, it gets easier and less engaging.
Take Civ 4 versus Civ 5, for example. Civ 5 is much more casual in a lot of ways, and I know at least two people who prefer Civ 5 explicitly because it was easier to learn. Civ 5 changed the mechanics so that instead of encouraging growth and competition, every new city slowed your research progress by 5% and lowered your maximum possible population by three. This meant that if you sat your ass in the capital and spammed world wonders all game, you were liable to do alright or even win if you played a broken leader, and more of the game boiled down to the random chance of "will my capital spawn in a good spot". Or in other words, what was normally a huge "newbie mistake" for the series became a viable tactic so that inexperienced players would benefit more from passivity. Meanwhile, players who were aggressive and expanded rapidly took major hits to research, population, and diplomacy with the AI. The game is operating on the opposite of the normal principle: it's high risk/low reward versus low risk/high reward over the long run, which promotes stagnant behavior and general inactivity.
>>323318286 >but there's no need to call them retarded, directly or indirectly. I agree with that, but sometimes there are people that talk shit when they don't know anything about it. I feel they deserve to be called casuals if they ask for it
Why the fuck shouldn't I speak like this? Honestly I wish everyone who got into gaming was a "real" or "hardcore" gamer, but they aren't. If I talk to a new friend and they say "do you play games?" I still don't have any common ground with them. Not one of those fuckers on tumbler saying WE'RE ALL THE SAME GAMERS GUYS can talk to me about ps1 hidden gems, roguelikes, programming, or Sonic CD's level design. And I can't talk to them about fallout 4, undertale, WoW, or whatever else. We're two different types of gamers, simple as that.
>>323318286 >I almost went with knitting or book reading for my example. Music snobs would be a better analogy. Nothing more insufferable than trying to talk to someone about a song you like and having them thumb their nose at your obvious lack of appreciation for true ska-punk.
Even juggalos are better than hardcore gamers in that regard.
>>323318545 Hey, if you need to put down a bitch for being a bitch, by all means. Talk shit, get hit.
>>323318484 >other serious players instead of talking to the first person you meet only to find she's some teenager's mom providing a ride. Naturally, you can find other core gamers at such places, but when it starts to be populated with non-core gamers who insist on their right to be there despite a very passing interest in the hobby at all, then it becomes more difficult to find the core gamers. Which is further exasperated by the fact that core gamers might, and have been, legit scared off from such places. Go ask /a/ how they feel about anime conventions, or, even better, how they feel about the Anime and Video game clubs in schools/colleges.
>The "casual" thing that annoys people in gaming would be like if they re-released chess every few years and they kept streamlining the game to make it more accessible and to get more people to buy it. That's another side effect of the non-core market being catered too, and one I would advise companies to avoid doing. There's a reason I call them non-core, and that's because at the end of the day, they are NOT your core audience, and they will NOT be there the next game, or the next game after that. They're here for the flash-in-the-pan. Trying to include them is a nice, reasonable cause, but in the end, it only scares off the core audience who are there because they can appreciate the product on many levels. Which leads me to another point that >>323318295 touched on.
It's a little elitest of me, but I don't consider someone who plays a LOT of a few games a core gamer. To me, someone who is a core gamer is someone who wants to experience a deeper understanding of the hobby in general. Game design, glitch finding, speed running, anything that involves a massive understanding of the games they play in general I would say are the core gamers.
>>323319253 >but it doesn't mean I can't beat Shovel Knight any% in under an hour. Any tips? I want to do this one and True Shovelry in one run. I did everything else as Shovel Knight, so I know the basic stuff >>323319712 In /v/ there's a 50% chance (probably higher) that you'll get called a faggot no matter what you post
>>323319892 >In /v/ there's a 50% chance (probably higher) that you'll get called a faggot no matter what you post I have literally never been called a faggot on /v/. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
replies to this post will not count toward my streak.
>>323319648 >Ask people how they think about clubs in high school High school clubs are the definition of casual, dude. Few kids join the high school band to become professional musicians. They join because they like music and want to meet girls who like music. People join anime clubs to meet potential mating partners or friends who also like anime. No shit it's not where you're going to find the hardest, most badass motherfuckers in the hobby.
And as for the talk about marketing, obviously a lot of companies casualize because of basic market dynamics. Imagine you have a hundred hardcore gamers who will buy your difficult niche game for $100 each. Then suppose you've got a thousand people who will buy your dumbed down version of the game for $11 each. You're going to make more money by selling cheap and wide. Those "core" gamers will buy the title at least once, regardless. Look at Starcraft 2 - the game is clunky, templated, and broken, but people are still swearing that Blizzard is keeping the RTS genre alive even as players continually get bored and vanish off the map forever faster than they're coming in. The core guys didn't stop being core guys, and the casuals dumped their money on the game and left after a month or two.
At the end of the day, the big companies care most about the bottom line, and none of this stuff you're saying about "core" consumers is unique or insightful to them. This is Econ 101 - and I don't mean that like, "everyone should know this, duh", I mean that in a college level Econ 101 class, they will cover pricing curves and models related.
>>323320617 >clubs Hobby clubs are meant for people to gather to a similar interest and further their understanding of it. They are by definition the core of the hobby, especially in a college setting. The reason they are like the way you described it now is because the actual core hobbiest who try and join see how everyone else isn't really serious about it and will generally leave. If they don't leave, then they usually quickly become the leader of that group being the only one that knows what they're talking about.
>Econ 101 You're right, it IS Econ 101. Which is why the marketers should have graduated and gone to Econ 201, or even just have learned from basic customer service reps. Sure, you wind up making way more money selling a watered down game for $11 each to non-core gamers, but the reason why you should make a niche game to the core group for $100 each is because that core group will actually stay with you. The next time you make a game for that core group, many of them will praise you and quickly buy up your game, which is what we had with the Souls series.
Meanwhile, the guys marketing to non-core gamers make a shit load of money right away, but then the next time the game is released, they have fewer buyers. The non-core got the experience from the first game and don't care about the next one, and the simplification that went into the game angered the core gamers.
You can say things like "it's about the bottom line", and it is, but you need to think about the bottom line today, tomorrow, six months from now, and so on. Which is why Guitar Hero and RockBand, two titans in the industry, are desperately struggling to stay afloat right now.
>>323321698 >Hobby clubs are meant for people to gather to a similar interest and further their understanding of it. No they aren't. Hobby clubs are for people to be social and to meet people. Tournaments are meant for competition and figuring out who the best players are. I've never joined a hobby club that could be described as "hardcore". Even when the members are all legitimately good at the hobby, the competition is still more like friendly sparring than real conflict and you go get beer and chat about your lives afterward.
>Well they should graduate to Econ 201 No, they shouldn't, because in this case the market basics are close enough to right that you can use them as a baseline and make some pretty good inferences about sales. First off is the reality that nobody sells games for $100. Video games are not like wine where the "sophisticated" brands go for many times the worth of their less charming competitors. The market has a general rule, currently stating a new release is around $60, and then you taper down the price over time.
If $60 is your ceiling and all the casual games are selling for that much, then you can't presently get away with saying, "Hey, our niche game has 20% worse sales than the next guy because the game is less accessible. Please pay us more for the game to make up for it!" The industry won't allow it - you sell for $60 or less.
That means your only real option is to casualize and reach out to a wider audience while still trying to stay engaging enough to keep long term interest. The frustrating thing is, it's not uncommon for games to go too far into the casual direction and wind up taking a previously complex series into a really boring, solved-game direction.
>>323322601 >No they aren't Yes they are. That's why they were founded in a school setting. Just because they've devolved doesn't mean the purpose behind their creation went away. It's not a party here.
>No, they shouldn't If they want their company to survive past a fiscal year, yes, yes they should actually. This is probably the most retarded thing I've ever heard from someone this week. >First off is the reality that nobody sells games for $100 I was going along with your metaphor there, pal. >Video games are not like wine where the "sophisticated" brands go for many times the worth of their less charming competitors. Used game market. Check out the price of Rule of Rose vs other games such as Astynax on the NES. >and then you taper down the price over time. Only if your game isn't selling, and then you start losing money as it sits on the shelf because your audience from the last game you made isn't showing up to buy it. (Barring of course the special edition re-releases, but that's another topic). >If $60 is your ceiling and all the casual games are selling for that much[...] I stand corrected. This line is the most retarded thing I've read all week. 1. Special editions of games can sell way more than the regular priced editions, both used AND new, including console special editions. 2. That's fine and all, except you're not even thinking about the back end of the budget or terms of net profit (maybe you SHOULD have gone to Econ201). It's actually fine if your game has 50% worse sales than the game next to it, because you only spent maybe $1 million on the game, whereas the game next to you spent almost $1billion making theirs, meaning they have to sell more at that price to make a profit, whereas you made your entire budget back four times within the first week (Dragon's Crown accomplished this, and it had help because Kamitani and Vanillaware make games that sell less, but are more profitable because they market to their core).
>That means your only real option is to casualize and reach out to a wider audience while still trying to stay engaging enough to keep long term interest.[...]
No, it means that you need to market for your core audience and expect that there might be fluctiations if the non-core get involved but to not react like a moron or try to "casualize" it by marketing to your perceived casuals based on some salt from Microsoft years ago.
>>323322601 What I understood from his post is that he's not talking about competition, but dedication and interest to the hobby in question. Why join a club to meet people that are faking interest in something you like to get attention?
>>323324019 They didn't "devolve". Jesus Christ, did you not chase skirts in high school? Motherfucker, let me tell you, I have always been one of those "hardcore" people when it comes to hobbies, and every club I joined in high school, I joined explicitly to meet people and to have fun. I didn't join band, wrestling, theater, or whatever they called that club about the animals to become the top of the league in those things. I joined for friends, friends, girls, and girls respectively, and then I did my best to get good at the hobbies while I was there. I guarantee 90% of the other kids in those clubs were doing the exact same thing, and the kids who wanted to be professional "whatever this is with the animals" people were in the minority.
And anyway, you're bringing up "special edition" versions of the game that cost more as though the companies aren't exploiting the "core" gamers who will spend more money on the exact same game the casual players are getting.
Civ 5 is fucking casual. I mean I solved it within days of giving enough of a shit to look up some of the game's standard algorithms. All it took was a little research and I was mopping the floor with people who had put over 500 hours into Civ 5. THAT'S what's wrong with casual games. People often FEEL like they're more accessible and more balanced, but they're not - they're usually more broken and a thousand times more susceptible to "hardcore" players because they're so much easier to crack apart and learn. It took me ages and a ton of reading to get really good at Civ 4, but Civ 5 - I shit you not - took me a week to be able to dominate my entire gaming group all because I figured out, "Oh, the game now revolves around basically one number explicitly because that makes it easier for weak players to prosper for longer".
Your arguments about the nature of casualization, why it happens, and why it shouldn't happen are all wrong.
>>323325212 I chased skirts outside of the classroom, and definitely outside of any clubrooms where people went to actually practice. Maybe your highschool experience might have been different if you went to a retarded high school, but most people in club rooms I went to did actually focus on learning what the club was talking about.
Special editions are companies trying to take advantage of the core group, but that doesn't matter as much when the core group just simply isn't there because Game2 in the series drastically "casualized" and gutted itself. Also, there's the matter of scalpers and the collectors, but that's a different matter entirely.
>That entire Civ 5 story Interesting, but what exactly is your point there?
>Your arguments about the nature of casualization, why it happens, and why it shouldn't happen are all wrong. Based on literally nothing. Okay. Either way, it looks like you've run out of things to say, so I'll be leaving the thread. Feel free to respond, I just won't be here.
>>323297396 I play for a story not for the gameplay and I always play on the lowest difficulty with the few games I actually care to indulge. I've beaten some games on their highest difficulty like Dragon Age/Dragon Age: Awakening on nightmare and a few of the Halo games on legendary but even still I prefer to play for fun unless competitive, which then nothing less than victory is acceptable. I have thousands of hours in a handful of games but since I don't buy but a few games a year I consider myself a casual.
>>323326278 What I'm saying is that you keep talking about the casual community as though it's poison, and you're saying corporations shouldn't cater to the casual audience because casuals aren't going to have enough brand loyality.
I'm saying you're wrong on all counts. Casualization is important, especially in gaming for two reasons: 1. It brings more people in, which gives you a wider pool of folks to play with and increases the odds of finding a solid scene that plays at the level you're comfortable with. 2. It's more profitable, and nothing you say is going to turn that on its ear. If both the hardcore and casual possible games will sell for $60 and the casual version will sell more copies, the more casualized game in the preferable option.
However, casualization does go wrong and it fucks everything up: Casual games are almost always easier to break, and the casual players who think they're getting the good end of the deal are getting shafted even harder. Take my anecdote with Civ 5. When I play Civ 4, the less experienced guys don't know exactly what I'm doing, but they can see my civilization evolved, adopting new policies, hitting new research in odd orders, and they know there's some kind of complex plan. They emulate some of what I'm doing, and the guys that learn from me faster get better. But in Civ 5? Everyone has to ask me, point blank, why I have three times the average world population and over three times the average research rate when all I'm doing is sitting on the same number of cities as everyone else hitting the exact same tech paths. With Civ 5, which is much more casual, I've sort of solved everything and can essentially win within the first two tech eras - and because all it took was an understand of how they broke things to help worse players, nobody can watch what I'm doing and say, "Oh, that makes a lot of intuitive sense". I'm exploiting the meta, the simple dumbed down math of the game.
>>323327515 >Casualization is important Jesus, get the fuck off /v/ >1 No point in bringing people in if it means games are shit. I'm sure it's fun playing Evolve with a lot of people, huh faggot? >2 That's important for companies, not the hobby itself and the enthusiasts. If you love EA's cock so much that you want them to win more money go whore yourself and give them your earnings
>>323326278 >>323327515 Consequently, you find that casual games are BORING. They're boring for the weaker players because they're getting destroyed by the very mechanics built to help them keep up. They're boring for the advanced players, because once they figure out the exploitable mechanic, they say, "Oh, is that all?" and they only play for social reasons if their friends aren't tired of being crushed. Imagine if every game of chess were solved by memorizing a single move order, and it were possible to execute that move order 90% of the time. That's what casual games are to a hardcore player. They're worse for everybody.
So ultimately, you want casualization, but only to a very difficult to achieve extent. You want it to the extent to where you get the most players, but not so casual and simple that you can break the game by having a small amount of meta knowledge.
Some people in my gaming group still don't believe me when I give them such ridiculously prescriptive orders to play Civ 5 well. Breaking the game means following very strict rules, but it's how you solve it. But it's really super simple.
Start with tradition. Build the Temple of Artemis and the Hanging Gardens if possible - nothing else really matters very much. If you get to them first, take the religious tenants that increase food and population growth. Spam farms and food buildings. Keep happiness from going negative. Expand in the industrial era.
Ta da. That's it. And people ask me, "What if I do this or that?" And the answer is always, "It's situationally possible, but the above is the most flexible, consistent way of playing that will always get you ahead no matter what your starting conditions look like".
>>323328934 No, he's right. Hardcore gamers will always decimate casual gamers. Casual games are easier to break, and they merely wind up with fewer hardcore players because they solve the game, get bored, and then fuck off to do something else.
>>323327515 >and you're saying corporations shouldn't cater to the casual audience because casuals aren't going to have enough brand loyality.
This is true, though. It's why Nintendo is extremely close to leaving the video game industry. No one in the core audience gives a shit about them anymore outside of the extreme fanboys who only like them because of nostalgia, they aren't gaining any new fans, in fact they're losing them at an alarming rate, selling as much as 10 million less each time they release a console.
They went for the casuals, but casuals are fickle and will move on. They moved on to mobile.
>>323329441 Their games aren't as pretty and all they do is push Mario non-stop. If people do "Let's Plays" of their latest game on Youtube, Nintendo hits them with a content ID claim.
I think Nintendo's sales problems are excluded to casualization. The company is also behind the times. It's plain irresponsible to attack social media when it's advertising your product. The company can't sell its console as "innovative" if they're doing nothing but releasing sequels that would play just as well if not better on any other console. They gambled on motion detection technology while the tech was and still is complete ass. I mean what else? Nintendo has always been super casual. They're obviously not getting MORE casual. I'm not sure that's possible.
>>323330626 Oh, you're right. I forgot how totally plausible competitive Super Mario Bros 3 was as a sport. And the power glove - it was so bad.
They made a movie about that shit and everything.
Hey chief, correct me if I'm wrong, but all those games that were hard as balls: they were made for the arcades, weren't they? Right? To be played casually? You'd pump a few quarters in, die a bunch, and then go home? Meanwhile all the stuff exclusively for the NES wasn't too hard.
>>323331642 Really? You're looking at a gimmicky, failed product idea and saying, "Yeah, this is what Nintendo looks like when they're being hardcore."
The Power Glove handled like ass too and so did ROB. Zelda II was ass. What else was ass? What are defining as hardcore, because a lot of things that demanded dedication in that era demanded dedication because it was ass and required a ton of effort to make it work properly.
>>323332459 >>323332552 It would be really hard to mow your lawn with an ice cream cone, but just because you're willing to expend the effort to do it doesn't necessarily mean you're a "hardcore" lawn enthusiast. It might also mean you're a dumbass.
>>323332787 >This game that requires dedication is casual because in my subjective opinion it's badly designed Most retarded analogy I've ever seen on /v/, congrats. Even more stupid than food analogies
>>323305037 >I want to say that this isn't necessarily true. I love movies, I love going to the movies, I love discussing the ins and outs of movies with other people that also love movies. The only DVDs/BDs I own are those that have been given to me as gifts, with maybe two exceptions. The same is true of anime and TV. I absolutely and completely love watching shit. But, I don't like having physical media around for visual mediums unless it's one of my favorites. Because you can watch anything whenever you want because the internet exists.
>>323333252 So if I played Muppet Adventure: Chaos at the Carnival until I beat it, you'd say I'm a hardcore gamer? Because honestly I always assumed it meant I like to win things and that I didn't have a lot of obligations one day.
It's not like those games required a really deep meta understand that called for research or care to invest time. It just took a ton of patience and the willingness to deal with the fucking terrible controls.
Playing games that were complete ass is not really a hardcore thing. There are still games that play like ass today. Best case I guess you could call yourself a hipster for playing through a steaming load of shit nobody else had the patience for.
In the context of vidya I always thought of casuals as someone who refuses to challenge themselves. They won't attempt to improve their skills or leave their comfort zone when faced with difficult obstacles. This is why /v/ has casual filter threads.
>>323334047 Being a hardcore gaymer means you're very dedicated and enthusiastic about video games. Someone who plays shitty difficult games a lot and wins would be hardcore, yeah. Hell, I'd say someone who plays difficult games a lot and never gets anywhere is still hardcore because the dedication is there even though the results aren't.
>>323335179 Again, you could learn how to box with a rabid wolverine stuffed down your trousers, but hardcore boxers wouldn't say you're one of them.
I'll play ladder games up into the top brackets, and you are never going to hear me praise somebody for beating Muppet Adventure or for being suckered into buying a Power Glove. If you're "hardcore" at something normally that means you take it seriously and focus on learning the skills to do it. Finding the patience to do your hobby with sub-par equipment isn't anything - it's a waste of time.
>>323335754 Boxing is a competitive sport, gaming as a whole is not. Just because you don't think they're hardcore doesn't mean they aren't, most casuals don't know what a NES is, much less Muppet Adventure. Knowing, playing and beating games like those means you're interested in gaming, and therefore not casual
>>323336285 Why would casual gamers not know what a NES is? My mother is in her fifties or something and she knows what a NES is.
How old are you? It can't be past teenage if you think the average person isn't familiar with the NES. That would also mean you probably don't even know how stupid the Virtual Boy was and why nobody bought one.
>>323335754 >hardcore boxers wouldn't say you're one of them >implying There's a difference between making a joke out of the entire thing you're supposed to be engaging with by bringing in something completely unrelated which breaks the rules and seriously engaging with the game by following its rules and using officially released and supported hardware.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.