What, exactly, is wrong with casual gamers?

#51INFRARED PYTHONPosted 12/13/2012 2:05:05 PM
obishawn posted...
Developers water down games so that they appeal to a broader demographic, this leaves traditional gamers with lesser quality games. Yeah, there's gonna be animosity.


This, don't understand what's not to get.
---
This message has been brought to you from my Galaxy Nexus
#52suksassPosted 12/13/2012 2:07:18 PM
WhereDidItGo posted...
What's funny to me is I've been playing video games for 30 years, enjoying nearly every genre out there from shooters like CoD and Halo to old school RPGs and everything in between, and I have no clue where I even fit on this imaginary scale. The whole business of casual vs. hardcore gamers just seems like a silly way for folks to give some sort of fictitious weight to their opinionated arguments. Whenever I see these terms tossed around, it has the equivalent feel of watching a debate between a chocolate lover and a vanilla lover discussing the best ice cream flavors.


Why not mix them? Mmmm, chocolate vanila icecream
#53Bigj089Posted 12/13/2012 2:07:18 PM
WhereDidItGo posted...
What's funny to me is I've been playing video games for 30 years, enjoying nearly every genre out there from shooters like CoD and Halo to old school RPGs and everything in between, and I have no clue where I even fit on this imaginary scale. The whole business of casual vs. hardcore gamers just seems like a silly way for folks to give some sort of fictitious weight to their opinionated arguments. Whenever I see these terms tossed around, it has the equivalent feel of watching a debate between a chocolate lover and a vanilla lover discussing the best ice cream flavors.


I place myself as a casual just from how often I play and how seriously I take games when I play, not about what games I enjoy. I own a PC, PS3, 360, Wii, a few handhelds, and a lot of older predecessor consoles and play all kinds of games minus racing and sports.

I see hardcore gamers as people who play a lot and really get into their games. Roleplaying, getting competitive, playing on the hardest difficulty, setting up in game challenges for themselves, ect. Casuals I see as not playing a lot and just doing so for simple enjoyment and don't take it seriously. They don't play the games until theyre horribly challenging but just right.
---
I hate pineapple pizza but I don't boycott pizza shops that offer that abomination.--The Liberator
#54dot921Posted 12/13/2012 2:17:46 PM
Nathypants posted...
The majority of people aren't "hardcore" and companies wish to make profit. they turn to the "casual" fanbase and make products that cater to their interests, taking away from the "hardcore" fans.

That and a lot of casual gamers are kinda ewwy people.
#55akjomsvikingPosted 12/13/2012 2:19:02 PM
WhereDidItGo posted...
What's funny to me is I've been playing video games for 30 years, enjoying nearly every genre out there from shooters like CoD and Halo to old school RPGs and everything in between, and I have no clue where I even fit on this imaginary scale. The whole business of casual vs. hardcore gamers just seems like a silly way for folks to give some sort of fictitious weight to their opinionated arguments. Whenever I see these terms tossed around, it has the equivalent feel of watching a debate between a chocolate lover and a vanilla lover discussing the best ice cream flavors.


Mostly this.

Also people need to get some sense of perspective. "Games" can be anything from Pac-Man to Eve Online.

If you think Skyrim is 'dumbed-down' or not complex, you have probably lost your sense of perspective. I've seen home video games progress from Space Invaders to Skyrim and trust me, they are getting more complicated all the time.

The challenge that devs face is to add features and qualities to games to interest and please experienced gamers, while not making them so complex that they turn off new gamers. You know, that person *you* were just a few short years ago.

I thought Skyrim had been over-simplified. My wife walked into the living room the other day while I was playing and asked me what I was doing in the game. My character was brewing some potions. So I start explaining to her about making the potions, then she asks me about the ingredients. So I explain to her that you can either pick them off of a plant, find them in a chest or someone's clothes, or buy them from a store. Then I'm explaining about experimenting with them to find out what the hell they all do. I stopped when I started going into how your skill level impacts how potent the potions are and how much they're worth. Then she asked, "So it's a game about cooking?" Which of course it's not, but that's my point. Just this ONE ASPECT of the game is as complex as most games were back in the early to mid-80s.

There was no complexity to games back then, at all. Zero. That's because they were specifically designed for an arcade experience, where a (usually drunk) teenager walked up with a handful of quarters and wanted to play and enjoy them in a matter of seconds.
#56RebelElite791Posted 12/13/2012 2:21:55 PM(edited)
akjomsviking posted...

The challenge that devs face is to add features and qualities to games to interest and please experienced gamers, while not making them so complex that they turn off new gamers. You know, that person *you* were just a few short years ago.



I was a new gamer 16 years ago. And no, I picked up Morrowind as the first game of its type that I'd played and got right into it. So that argument is stupid.

Also nobody here is saying they should be impossible for new players to get into. We're saying its bad when the game is DUMBED DOWN from previous incarnations or what it should've been just to pull in the Cawadooty crowd.
---
Rebel is pretty much a planet, pulling all sorts of moons and satellites his way, among them good, bad, foolish, trollish, and everything else - SeaArrKing
#57WhereDidItGoPosted 12/13/2012 2:23:47 PM
suksass posted...
WhereDidItGo posted...
What's funny to me is I've been playing video games for 30 years, enjoying nearly every genre out there from shooters like CoD and Halo to old school RPGs and everything in between, and I have no clue where I even fit on this imaginary scale. The whole business of casual vs. hardcore gamers just seems like a silly way for folks to give some sort of fictitious weight to their opinionated arguments. Whenever I see these terms tossed around, it has the equivalent feel of watching a debate between a chocolate lover and a vanilla lover discussing the best ice cream flavors.


Why not mix them? Mmmm, chocolate vanila icecream


Funny thing is, when it comes to gaming, I usually do. That's my problem. I like challenge, but I don't think that lack of challenge detracts from enjoyment. Challenge, whether high or low, really matters little to me. Same with depth. I like deep games, but shallow ones are fun too.
---
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." - G.K. Chesterton
#58kylekillgannonPosted 12/13/2012 2:28:36 PM
WhereDidItGo posted...
Funny thing is, when it comes to gaming, I usually do. That's my problem. I like challenge, but I don't think that lack of challenge detracts from enjoyment. Challenge, whether high or low, really matters little to me. Same with depth. I like deep games, but shallow ones are fun too.


I like this. This is nice.
---
History is written by those who have hanged heroes.
#59Tman144Posted 12/13/2012 2:31:19 PM
akjomsviking posted...
WhereDidItGo posted...


There was no complexity to games back then, at all. Zero. That's because they were specifically designed for an arcade experience, where a (usually drunk) teenager walked up with a handful of quarters and wanted to play and enjoy them in a matter of seconds.


I disagree. Zork was released in 1980 and was plenty complex. I think games today are generally as complex as they were 20 years ago. What has changed dramatically is the looks. It seems like with every new game devs are willing to sacrifices features for polygons.
---
Its not that I'm lazy, its that I just don't care.
#60akjomsvikingPosted 12/13/2012 2:32:06 PM
RebelElite791 posted...

I picked up Morrowind as the first game of its type that I'd played and got right into it. So that argument is stupid.


Then Rebel you have to accept the fact that you are extremely rare as far as gamers go. Even the reviews of the day (as you will remember since you were playing back then) urged gamers not to give up on it due to its sheer size. They also mentioned the fact that it was *so* open to experimentation could be viewed as a fault.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with viewing Morrowind as the pinnacle of gaming, just that it makes you unusual. Just like how some people love the **** out of motorcycles that need to be worked on all the time, and detest bikes that are dumbed down for more casual bikers. Or gun owners that love guns with really big calibers and consider more manageable guns for wimps.

It's not like this industry is unique in trying to find the sweet spot, is all I'm saying.