next »

[___]

What if casual games are too hardcore for me?

Then the universe will implode.

[Calanctus]

Chris Bateman considers the hardcore gamers (as opposed to casual ones) those who have made a hobby out of gaming.

I like this definition. However, like others in this thread, I do not like the terms "hardcore" or "gamer."

[Tondog]

What if casual games are too hardcore for me?

Non-gamer?

[Michaël Samyn]

What if casual games are too hardcore for me?

Non-gamer?

Perhaps. But there's a lot of things that I do enjoy in games. I enjoy the story, the characters, the environments, the soundscape, the music, interacting with a virtual world. Etcetera. I just don't enjoy challenge. I like games when they are so easy that I never fail. I would spend a lot of time on those if they existed. I would be a hardcore non-gamer. 

[skaldicpoet9]

I like games when they are so easy that I never fail.

Play Spider-Man: Friend or Foe :D

Seriously. You "die" but it doesn't really matter, you can just keep playing.

[Radnom]

I loved those LucasArts adventure games, the ones where you can't lose (When point+click adventure game makers decide to put death in their game, a little piece of me falls off and dies). They're great, because you can take your time, look around, talk to people, and generally relax while you think of solutions to the puzzles. you can even leave the game running and get something to eat.

Adventure games are very relaxing I think even non-gamers can get something out of them. They're not easy, but you can't lose.

EDIT: well, you can give up, but that doesn't count 

[Michaël Samyn]

You can also get stuck in adventure games. Because they are usually linear. And often force the story to fit with that structure. This means you can easily get stuck when one of the steps in the thread simply seems illogical to you. Then the only thing that is left to do is try each and every option available. That's when adventure games disappoint me. And that's also when they lose the casual gamer, I think.

[shinygerbil]

I would define a "hardcore gamer" (as much as I have to add, of course, that I hate such Peter Moore-speak) as one who doesn't tell the difference between the many and unvaried games they play, because they don't give a shit about what they are actually playing, just so long as they *are* playing.

I went home for Christmas this year, excitedly showing off Super Mario Galaxy to my brother; he just barely finished the first 'tutorial galaxy' when he proclaimed, "I'm bored, I want to play Call of Duty 4." He then went on to his normal rotation of COD4, Halo 3, Gears of War and (his only saving grace) TF2.

All day.

Every day.

 

[skaldicpoet9]

 

All FPS all the time, now that is "hardcore" :D

When it boils down to it though the entire concept of hardcore vs. casual gamer is quite ridiculous. I mean why don't we designate people who watch movies on a regular basis and analyze them as "hardcore" moviegoers? Is there a casual vs. hardcore book reader debate? The whole concept is nonsense. You either play games or not it's as simple as that.

[Radnom]

You can also get stuck in adventure games. Because they are usually linear. And often force the story to fit with that structure. This means you can easily get stuck when one of the steps in the thread simply seems illogical to you. Then the only thing that is left to do is try each and every option available. That's when adventure games disappoint me. And that's also when they lose the casual gamer, I think.

That's the creator's fault, not the genre's.

I went home for Christmas this year, excitedly showing off Super Mario Galaxy to my brother; he just barely finished the first 'tutorial galaxy' when he proclaimed, "I'm bored, I want to play Call of Duty 4." He then went on to his normal rotation of COD4, Halo 3, Gears of War and (his only saving grace) TF2.

What's wrong with that?  nothing wrong with personal preference. No game is going to appeal to everyone.

[Michaël Samyn]

Is there a casual vs. hardcore book reader debate? The whole concept is nonsense. You either play games or not it's as simple as that.

And that's exactly where things get a bit strange. Because you don't either read books or not. And you don't either watch movies or not. Instead you have a preference for certain books and certain movies.

Maybe that's the real meaning of casual and hardcore: they are two types of games. And as such they attract two different types of players.

And this is perhaps why there's so many people who don't play games: two types is just too little. We need more variation.

[skaldicpoet9]

I can agree with that to a certain extent.

The problem is that when you cater specifically to people's tastes within a given genre you neglect many of the unique things inherent in games. For instance there are plenty of games that are a synthesis of two different genres, however, it is rare, but not completely uncommon, to have movies and books achieve that same degree of synthesis. I don't see many romantic/horror/comedies around (but then again I am sure the odds are there is one out there) the point is though that people that play games tend to be more varied in their tastes. Maybe that is why it is easier to for some people to distinguish people who play games in the way that they play them and not the games that they play themselves.

[spellcaster]

The comparison with books is good, but there are some differences.

If I read a book with a complex storyline, and then have to stop reading for a while I can simple skip over the last couple of pages to remember what just happened. And there's no need for any kind of decision on my side - I can simply read on.

if I have a game with a complex story line, this normally means that I also have a lot of different goals. I can't skim over the last events to get back into the game. I need to go on, need to remember in detail what parts of what quest (in rpgs) I have already finished and where to go for. That's a reason I never finishef FF VII for example - after a pause of 1 week I was completely lost at the safepoint

I think there's a "casual friendly" attribute one can assign to games. Which basically means how easy it is to start the game, play a while, turn off the game - and later on return to the game to play a bit more.
I'm pretty sure that even some "hardcore" games are pretty casual friendly in this regard.
The other thing that needs to be considered is the learning curve and work/reward ratio. But this is something very fuzzy I haven't really thought through

I am not sure if there are certain game genre that can't be made casual friendly. Some genres might take more thought than others, though. But I think the trend will be that all games will be more casual friendly.
It's like the old command based interfaces were replaced by menus, menus by GUIs and GUIs by user friendly GUIs

The trend is already there.

[Michaël Samyn]

[...]
there are plenty of games that are a synthesis of two different genres
[...]
people that play games tend to be more varied in their tastes

I don't see it that way. From where I stand, there's not even, such a big difference between casual games and hardcore games, let alone between an RTS and an FPS. They have extremely similar structures and often deal with similar themes. I think there is more variation within a single movie, book or music genre than within the entire offering of games.

We can see all these subtle differences because we start with a lot of assumptions about the medium. We're incredibly prejudiced and have very clearly defined expectations from games. And within that very narrow field, we see lots of variation. But from the outside, they're all just games and they're all very similar.
Once in a while a game jumps out that is clearly different (Nintendogs, Sims, Braintraining, Singstar, Guitar Hero) and then suddenly the audience at large notices it. But the difference between Katamari Damacy, Crysis and Bejeweled is far too subtle.

[Michaël Samyn]

Now that genres have been mentioned in this thread, I think it is vital that everyone reads Chris Bateman's article on "Demographic Game Design". In this 8 page report conducted at International Hobo, he identifies 4 types of players, each of which has a preference for certain game genres. And within each type there is a hardcore and a casual subtype. I find it a very useful analyis.

[Pacian]

Chris Bateman's article on "Demographic Game Design". In this 8 page report conducted at International Hobo, he identifies 4 types of players, each of which has a preference for certain game genres. And within each type there is a hardcore and a casual subtype. I find it a very useful analyis.

According to that, I'm a hardcore wanderer.  Which seems a contradiction in terms, but the description fits me perfectly, including the dubious Myers-Briggs bit (I always score as INFP).

I think a better term for it would be "Knytt fans who want to save Curly but can't beat Hell."