freespeech

tegthethird

Console breaking, maybe, but not groundbreaking...

FunkyJ

Also, gamers don't always want a deep experience. When you decide what movie you want to watch, do you always go for Schindler's List and No Country for Old Men, or do you sometimes pop in Ferris Beuller or Dumb and Dumber?

tegthethird

crazyorloco

Yea, Rockstar has always been populated by douches.

Rebochan

Kung

TwilightKing

Flitz

Those like Epic have some smart mouths considering they've made no effort to change the tide (or at least manintain a healthy balance) on the Wii at all. Why did the PS2 get such balance support but when it comes to the Wii they treat it like it can't do anything more than flash games?

This is not to say "casual" gaming is some "virus" because for many companies who blew most of their investments on "hardcore" big budget efforts, it's probably one of the things that's getting them back. But as always, it's the unsung "hero" that helps keep the wheels turning. That's also the problem with people often complaining about it as if they're losing gaming the way they knew it.

Games like Tetris were around long before. If casual gaming seems like its taking over, it only looks like that because of the stark contrast of support the Wii is getting and the popularity of the system. If the Wii got any real flood of games that balance between casual and hardcore audiences, it would simply be business as usual on par with what the PS2 got.

But as Bertrand Russell once said:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence..."

So in this light, the general perception is Nintendo is some "casual" game maker (which is a contrast to reality) and after thought for most "hardcore" gamers and developers. Had Nintendo said they were really targeting hardcore gamers and begged third-parties to do what they did for the PS2/360/PS3/Xbox, I'd bet they get blank stares. "Expand" to the casuals and people go in this one track mind of "causals, casuals, casuals."

Y'know gamers suggested Nintendo should go with open arms embracing every developer out there as oppose to their N64 Dream Team. "It's the only way to win" they said. Little did we know the only thing these developers will so (outside of a couple or so) are cheap knock-off and ports with very little thought (relatively speaking) put into the games. I guess people assumed that in the light of companies always "testing the water" doing great in casual software would net really great AAA software. But I guess they were testing the wrong waters because they've only proven that "casual" games sell. So in the end promises of bigger things never really happen. Baby steps over and over.
Frankly, this is why I don't believe that Nintendo pulling out all the stops in making consoles as versatile and powerful as the other current systems would've really change much. Not only would they've netted the same slow crawling numbers as the PS3 and Cube (because "hardcore" go 360/PS3 apparently), no one would've really given them games like a real FF game or MGS. Sure some would've spilled on their system, but overall it would've been the same second rate treatment as it's been since the N64.

questworld

OT79

Rockstar: And fuck you too.

(srsly, nice post)

Frank

mightyg

Gam3r

VakeroRokero

Smash_Bro

MysteryPersonX

I'm not sure how you're defining "casual", but if we're sticking to the casual/hardcore dichotomy that most people here seem to insist on, I don't see how GTA4 can go on the "hardcore" side. Huge numbers of people who don't even slightly considering themselves "hardcore gamers" will be playing this game.

MysteryPersonX

I'm not sure how you're defining "casual", but something like GTA that's the most mainsteam of mainstream seems to fit the bill to me. At least, this is if there's the typical casual/hardcore dichotomy that most insist on, since GTA certainly doesn't appeal only (or even mainly) to people who would call themselves hardcore gamers.

MysteryPersonX

It is even more disturbing that some commenters consider Houser a hero. Heroes do not attack others in order to validate themselves. In one fell swoop, he has managed to alienate part of the industry while sabotaging any ground gained in advancing the public acceptance videogames as a valid pastime.

Velops

Oh well, I still like all types of games. Hopefully they can all peacefully coexist in this world.

flashtut

Yes, it's thematic content such as establishing in game relationships with crime leaders and shooting the common pedestrian in the leg to see how far he will get before your able to jack a car and run him over. Not to mention the deep plot involving deceit and violence. Sounds like you either own a Wii, or you don't own GTA there. Thanks for adding weight to my point that the word casual gets thrown around without any context.

Godzilla-Sushi

Casual gaming in the form of Uno...great!

Casual gaming in the form of Super Fun Time Mini-Gamez...no so much!

Godzilla-Sushi

Meanwhile every mainstream kid plays stuff like Halo. People who mainly do other things, but think of Halo when they think of video games. Is that not casual?

GusherKid

wild_world_girl

As if it matters, of course, 'hardcore' isn't something to aspire to exactly.

DrFresh

People who buy "casual" games would never buy GTA anyway.

Kamakaze

Note that the above is not a criticism of GTA4. I happen to like a lot of things that are very mainstream.

MysteryPersonX

If a few non-gamers pick up a "casual" game, there is a chance they may take the next step up and pick up something like GTA IV down the road. If more money can be made because there's more gamers, that means companies will work that much harder to put out a quality product.

So, yeah, companies like Rockstar kick ass and make great games and we need that but we also need casual games so more people can be introduced to gaming.

thedouginator

Arklop

The horror....the horror.....

dirtypanda

And when Little Jacob is translating Badman for Niko, the game reaches an almost meta-like level of hilarity, because Little Jacob's style of speaking actually becomes more understandable and even takes on a sense of normalcy only in comparison to Badman's.

To tie this in to the topic, Dan Houser may have no love for casual gaming, but one thing you can't accuse him of is incompetence on any sort of level. He knows his stuff, and he's more than backed it up over the years, and it's never been more evident than in his recent stint as one of the main creative minds behind GTAIV (such as its co-writer, with the writing being one of the most acclaimed strengths of the game).

Zeliard

Why wouldn't it make sense to move to casual games if these are meant to be better selling games? I've heard all this topic that there is a bigger casual audience, smaller investment in casual games so why does it not make sense to use staff to make casual games? It does make sense and it is possible, which is why I don't like the idea of a casual surge.

How about Nintendo then? I see very little in the way of hardcore IP coming from them. There's definitely a shift happening with the Wii and people will see it more as the Wii sells more. The only reason Nintendo keeps producing hardcore games is because it has old IP that still sell. They're not going to make any new hardcore titles and they'll just keep milking there old ones. That's your example of one company that's making the shift.

Llost

DigitalHero

I know I don't play as much as I used to. Having a job, outside life, and a fiancée that demands attention tends to do that. But I'd still say I play more then average.

But 'average' seems to be changing when it comes to gaming, and I don't understand all the hate about that with 'casual' and 'hardcore' being thrown around allot more these days.

I remember before the PS1 gamers wishing the industry was more widely accepted. Now its like the same gamers feel jaded that 'casual' gaming is catching on. You can't have it both ways.

Its like any other medium. There are genres that will appeal to different audiences. If you want the market to expand you have to appeal to a greater audience. The Wii is proof of this. All gamers started somewhere, so the influx of casual games as a large audience joins the gaming ranks makes sense. It's not like millions of new gamers are going to jump in playing oblivion as their first title. Like wise, they are not only going to play wii compilation titles for the next 10 years, despite what many would like to believe.

I obviously don't like using the terms 'casual' and 'hardcore' since they seem to mean something different to every gamer. I'd call tetris a 'casual' game. But I also remember my mother waking me up 2AM after she got the space shuttle and beat the original version on the first GB. I'd call that 'hardcore'. :-)

TKWarrior

Accessible is not the same thing as easy to play.

And frankly, people can "see it" however they want. The terms aren't cut-and-dry anyway. Most games are a mix of the two which makes you people lauding one over the other look even goofier at the end of the day.

OneFreeMan

Dude, when Badman speaks to niko and jacob translates....oh man what a fucked up bunch of lines.

-------------------------------

Honestly, if you don't feel niko being realistic with his emotions you haven't played the game and certainly aren't far if you have played it.

At one point in the story during the mission with roman you're given a great look at nikos character and the family values he has.

ManjiKengo

For the most part, the development resources are separate. The core game "shovelware" is much more of a detriment to the core game market than casual games will ever be. 187 Ride or Die, Def Jam Icon, Beowulf, Kane and Lynch, Superman Returns, Viking: Battle for Asgard, etc. THESE are your enemies. Not casual games.

OneFreeMan

In the rare event that someone complains that there's an obvious conflict of interest, the media squeals "you're killing the messenger!", or pretends the complainer don't exist, then the cycle repeats.

ManekiNeko

What companies? Look at how Capcom disolved Clover studios after they made some great "hardcore" games and then put RE:UC on Wii, where the game looked and played horrible. Sega has done the same, releasing game after game on the Wii only, like Ghost Squad. These games may not be casual at heart, but the casual success of the Wii was the motivating factor that took them away from the systems that could have done them justice. You can easily look up plenty of stories here on Kotaku where company X decides to make Wii titles over other stuff. Happily the poor sales of Wii titles that are not the Nintendo staples have began to reverse this trend, but who knows what greatness was lost?

Just like Super Mario Bros. was "hardcore" in the past and "casual" today things change. You can describe Pong as casual all you want, it is not worth my time to argue anymore as it sounds like you would refuse to believe that cavemen feared fire at one time...

Footix

Mikintosh

No major ones that I know of, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

For the most part, any company that is making core games and looking to break into casual gaming is either going to a) hire new staff or b) acquire an existing casual games company.

They're not going to pull art and development resources from core games and move them to casual. It doesn't make sense economically or technically. The skillsets are disparate, the development cycles vastly different, experience on core games isn't going to translate (hence costing you money and talent), etc.

I did speak of the real world, as I said in more than just that part of the post these companies aren't only doing casual games, they are doing hardcore and casual but the point was just that the more casual they do the less hardcore they do.

And my point is that's ridiculous. They're going to do as much of both as the market will consume. It's consumer-driven. As long as there's demand for more core games, more core games will be created. As long as there is demand for more casual games, more casual games will be created. Some studios will do both, most one or the other, but NONE are going to stop satisfying one demand just so they can try to satisfy another. It makes no sense economically for a company to shift it's business model with existing talent in place like that. It's just not going to happen.

OneFreeMan

*dies of laughter*

Roto13

No thnaks.

DigitalHero

You are correct, the Wii has sold a lot of games. I personally have bought 9 Wii games, (and I have not much cared for most of them.) So the console can sell games. I was just speaking from what I have seen, and in most cases I have seen only Wii Sports/Wii Play along with the Wiis at many of friends' homes. (This is especially true of my female friends.)

As for your second point, I do not really blame the casual gamers for the things that are happening. (I think my original post may have kind of suggested that, which is my bad.) My problem is when companies that I have supported for years shun me for the new dollars of the casual gamers. I mean, consider your example, that each Wii has sold 5 games. (I will not count Wii Sports as being sold since it was free in all regions but mine...) I have bought 4 more than the average, so Nintendo has made more money from me than the casuals, yet they get the better treatment.

Footix

You might not speak imbecile, but you also don't seem to recognize the same type of speech that one of the characters near the very beginning of the game uses.

whiptcracker

Fair enough. But these terms are not subjective. Whether people called games "casual" or "hardcore" back then doesn't change the fact that they were one or the other.

95%+ of Atari games were casual because the concept, control scheme and gameplay was simple and accessible. People didn't make the distinction back then because ALL games were generally simple and easily accessible. Again, for the most part, I could hand the Atari 2600 controller to my Dad and watch him have fun with the game.

It didn't take long before that wasn't true. If I handed the controller to my Dad while exploring the countryside in Dragon Warrior? I can tell you some things would have happened, none of them resembling "fun."

So, whether or not the terms "casual" and "hardcore" were always in use doesn't change the fact that casual games have existed and been a driving force in gaming since it's inception.

Accept it and move on.

OneFreeMan

I did speak of the real world, as I said in more than just that part of the post these companies aren't only doing casual games, they are doing hardcore and casual but the point was just that the more casual they do the less hardcore they do.

You clearly think a casual game is just one that is accessible. That's not all though, a game can be casual and have a slightly difficult interface or be casual and have longevity and replayibility. A casual game could also have a good long plot but generally they don't. What makes a game casual is a simple interface (you wouldn't call steel batallion casual would you because it has lost it's accessibility by interface). I wouldn't call DOA casual but it has a simple button interface and an easy to pick up and play style so why is that? because it's difficulty. There's more to a game than one facet. It's a merger of things and that's why some have mass appeal, to think every game is hardcore or casual is naive.

Llost

Easy money? How so?

The casual gaming market is easily as, if not more, competitive than the core gaming market. Development cycles are shorter so profits don't have to be as large to turn a dime, but to make a truly successful casual game? Not an easy task in today's market. Most fail, miserably (just like core games).

Companies that might have tried to make something worthwhile, like the next Goldeneye or Metal Gear Solid are now moving to casual games (some of which might be good) rather than trying to make a product that makes one so glad to be a gamer, like GTA IV.

You people keep saying this, and I keep asking: What companies? Where? When?

Studios are created to meet demand. As there is demand for core games, there will be supply. As there is demand for casual games, there will be supply. Studios will exist to meet both demands as necessitated by the market.

It is not zero sum nor are the genres mutually exclusive.

This is not a difficult concept people.

Pong was not casual when first released. Yes, your parents may not be gamers today, but if they played it at the time of its release then they were, as it was the most complicated game on the market. By today's standards it seems simple enough, but back in the late 70's it was fairly complicated.

No, it wasn't. Pong was the same game then as it is now.

It was the most technically advanced game on the market, yes. But complicated? You turned a dial to move a paddle up and down to hit a little ball. Sorry, but that's as casual as it comes, 1970 or today.

OneFreeMan

They invent a totally revolutionary control scheme, yet they don't use it to it's potential. Take for example ExciteTruck. It was a really intense game. Mario Kart Wii could have been as intense, but it's not. It's stripped down to "non-gamer" speed with rubber band AI and no Wii Remote aiming for weapons.

Nintendo can make games for non-gamers and for 10 year olds, that's fine. They'll always be about their bottom line and company success.

My point is there was a time when Nintendo and others were about risking their financial health for the good of the industry and for the sake of making something truly great.

Nintendo isn't about that anymore, they've just become very good at exploiting an audience and institutionalizing gaming.

<3

bennifer3000

With the advent of gaming becoming more mainstream due to mainly the original PlayStation and cellphones, this changed. Are new market was formed. So I don't buy the "It's been a huge portion of the gaming market forever." but I do respect your opinion. :)

DigitalHero

This from the maker of Grand Theft Auto 3, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and Grand Theft Auto 4. So daring and innovative! That formula hasn't been done at all four times already!

You ever notice that the guys who are against casual gaming are almost invariably a) working for Sony or Microsoft and b) juvenile thugs who are unable to articulate their opinion without profanity? I know I have.

ManekiNeko

Yah, except companies aren't doing that. Idiot?

I mean, I could propose a hypothetical situation that supports my argument too. It helps to refer to things that are actually happening the real word though.

Games like Bioshock are casual because a player can easily get into it

No, sorry.

You're just completely misinformed as to the definitions of these terms making this argument pretty much pointless.

OneFreeMan

All kidding aside, what does that have to do with ANYTHING that was stated in your prior exchange?

On second thought, never mind. You obviously took some personal offense in my first comment which was unintentional. I doubt saying anything else at this point will reverse that and I'm not getting dragged in a comment war. Just stating my opinion.

teh_joe got the message I was trying to convey and hopefully others did as well. Truthfully I normally agree with ya. But I don't know what you're arguing about so I'll just drop it. I said what I wanted to say.

TKWarrior

Happens so rarely. Not really even worth considering.

You provided the example yourself. Now Mario can be considered a casual game. Then it was definately considered a core game.

Mario Bros. was always casual. Always will be. Super Mario Bros. (and sequels) are not so much. None of these have changed category magically over time.

Of course it does. The first thing that has to be avoided in a casual gaming is any degree of frustration. Which is overly present in GH.

Not unless you're playing on difficulty levels beyond your experience. Most people I've introduced the game to start out on Easy/Medium and have frustration-free fun right out of the gate.

Again, you need to differentiate between playing a game and mastering a game. Just because your average casual gamer isn't going to beat every song on Expert does not make GH a "core" game.

Again, just look to Tetris. No casual gamer is beating it on "Grandmaster Death Mode" but that doesn't change the fact that it's a casual game.

I didn't mean that developers stop working on core games altogeter to make ONLY casual games, but if they allot resources to casual games, wuch resources cannot be used towards the development of core ones, It's pretty simple. The less casual games are created (to go flood the market with absolute shovelware), the more resources are available for core ones.

Sorry, that's just not how it works in the industry man. So long as there is demand, developers will crop up to satisfy those demands. Demand for casual games does not reduce demand for core games or vice versa, and studios know this. Nobody is taking resources away from one to make the other. It's just not happening.

We'll see at the end of the year, my dear "industry worker" (probably casual industry worker, seeing how fiercely you defend that crap). I'm sure you're really happy that the market is flooded with casual shovelware. Well, I'm not, and lots of other gamers, as you can see, aren't as well. Trends are normallt followed by counter-trends. It's just a matter of time.

Again, how is casual gaming a "trend?" It's been a huge portion of the gaming market forever. It's not a trend and it's not going to change by "the end of the year."

OneFreeMan

Beat Patapon? Nobody wins at Patapon. Playing that game automatically makes you a looser ::rimshot::

amiright? AMIRIGHT?

j/k Playstation

DreamTwister

Yeah, fuck all this stuff about casual gaming. I think people still want games that are groundbreaking. The Wii is doing something totally different, which is fantastic. We're hopefully going to prove that there's also a very big audience for people who want entertainment in another form, who think of games as being a narrative device that can challenge movies.

He's obviously connected the Wii to casual gaming, which is wrong. Not that I'm a fanboy, but I see the Wii bringing back the "narrative device" that was present in adventure games in the 80's/90's. I know, that sounds like an oxymoron, but, in its heyday, adventure games were reaching the depth and quiality of feature films at the time.

Maybe he'll change his tune in time...

boopadoo

Maybe Houser should work on making his games innovative again before he criticizes everyone else.

HDID

Llost

1. I think you are mistaken that people buy a Wii for Wii sports and that's it. The Wii has shipped 24+ million units. The Wii has sold a grand total of 148.44 Million games, with even more on the VC. Discounting VC and doing lazy math, that's an attach rate of about 6 games per console. Since everyone seems to run out and buy Wii Play (ick) and it comes with Wii Sports (not so ick), I'm willing to cut that number down, but that does mean, ON AVERAGE, every person who buys a Wii buys 4 more games. (source for all numbers: Wikipedia) That seems like growth to me!

2. I don't think the casual market is coming in and screaming "You need to change for us!" I think they are just going "We like to have fun too, sell us something!" Part of the rush right now to the casual market is just publishers realized they were willing to spend money too.

3. With the expansion of the gaming demographic and possibilities of gaming machines, the gaming industry would have to screw up BAD at this point for another crash. There is also a diversity to the type of games that can be offered that was lacking in the early 80s. Don't get me wrong, programmers did AMAZING things considering the hardware in the 2600, but you can do a lot more now.

If game publishers in general is making a mistake right now that could lead to a crash, I'd guess that the nickle and diming of microtransactions could lead to a consumer backlash at some point. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone HAPPY about how EA has handled microtransactions up till now. (Unrelated side note: if I'm paying $5 for something, is it still a MICROtransaction?).

4. I call gaming my hobby, but I do so consciously. Gee, that sentence sucks. Let me try it this way:

I know I spend a fair amount of time gaming, but I think it's still less then some people spend just watching TV. But I think you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who considers watching TV a hobby. It's just what they do to relax. But if gaming as an activity could be as acceptable in the public eye as watching TV, then perhaps it won't be the modern equivlent of the "devil music" that rock and roll was in the 50s, and we can get away from "OMG! A game with violence! Think of the children!" mentality that the game industry currently has to deal with.

NateN

DigitalHero

Sorry, as far as I am concerned Pong was not casual when first released. Yes, your parents may not be gamers today, but if they played it at the time of its release then they were, as it was the most complicated game on the market. By today's standards it seems simple enough, but back in the late 70's it was fairly complicated.

Umm, not liking the control scheme and controller is one thing. But that doesn't have anything to do with casual games. The Wii supports casual games, yes, but that doesn't make all games on the console casual. Metroid Prime 3 is a perfect counter-example. It's not a casual game.

I did not say I did not like the controls. (I don't, but that is besides the point.) I said that the design of the system, which was done to try and attract casual players, has resulted in the game not being playable for me. (Due to technical limitations based on the casual friendly design.) How is this not a case in which the desire on a company's part to cash in on the casual dollars has negatively affected a long time gamer? All games on the console may not be casual per se; however, the casual market targeted controls will affect nearly every game released for it. How can you not agree?

But seriously, we do just need to agree to disagree. Your definition of casual and mine do differ, you are right about that. It is obvious that you have not experienced the negative effects of the growing "popularity" of casual games, and thus, cannot understand my viewpoint. (Much like how anti-death penalty protesters suddenly change their tune when someone they love is a victim of violent crime and they see the perp go free.)

I will give you props on the response to my marketing comment though. Plus 1 for you ; )

Footix

I meant the last few generations not the start sorry. The point is consoles can survive on hardcore games alone. I don't believe making gaming exclusive is a bad thing, it's the just like art, why make art simple so idiots can understand it when you can just make art? You design a game to be fun, interesting and sometimes as art, I don't mind casual games becasue they meet the fun part but I do believe that you need to supply hardcore games and push hardware to there limits in order to start and create better and more imaginitive games than mere casual ones which rely on quirky gimmicks or a fun way of batting something about. Essentially casual games are more stripped down, less well made, smaller and less value for money versions of hardcore games.

I agree apart from the exclusive part, games can be fun and that's why we have small games but my main point is that companies shouldn't make good franchises more casual and make too many casual games at the expense of learning to create real in depth games that come out as more than just a working guys way of relieving a 20 minute boredom. Lost odyssey for example, it's a great game in my opinion and I hope more games try and achieve a level of story telling and emotion like that rather than opt to make casual games.

@OneFreeMan: I have no data but I have common sense. Think of it this way 5 developers, 2 stop making hardcore games and make casual games. Ofcourse there's gonna be less harcore if companies are changing to make casual games rather than hardcore and making some casual and some hardcore. Idiot. That's because they generally don't go exclusively casual but they can make the odd casual game which can draw away from hardcore games.

I'll use your argument, I don't know any casual devs that suddenly decide 'lets do hardcore games'. So it's not more devs and studio's to make games for everyone it's yet again more caual games for the casual crowd which I don't mind so long as it doesn't detract from developers of modern day games (immersive good graphics, story structured games) because that draws away from what could be great games.

If you look at my comment above I meant few generations back not from the start, that was a mistake I typed.

Actually they are the same thing, a casual game is one that people can easily get into, has an easy interface and either has lots or no replayability due to a repetitive structure or a simple and short story. Games like Bioshock are casual because a player can easily get into it, play the game and complete it, there's no competitive multiplayer or anything and the game is designed for a single player experience. If you dumb down a game then your making it more appealing to less good gamers so your making it more mass market and less hardcore. Hardcore and casual games aren't just judged by one thing and so you can get long games but as I said they're repetitive.

@FunKrusher: Even if there is less hardcore gamers that doesn't mean they should be neglected when they are the people who do play and buy the most games. One of the points I was getting at is that games shouldn't be dumbed down and that if companies are getting lots of money from casual games which are generally smaller or repetitive they should invest that into making more hardcore and casual games. People seem to think I've been insulting casual games, I'm not, I just accept they are inferior and not as in depth as hardcore games and my point wasn't that we should get rid of them but we should try and keep hardcore games.

They are doing that and you'd be surprised but they are our friends, game designers love games and stories and stuff just like us and that's exactly why they haven't abandoned hardcore games for the casual surge. And I assume they want us to play and enjoy games so adding stuff like multiplayer or just making there stories longer. I'm talking about an increased trend in games like COD4 (which has multiplayer so people don't mind) and then games like Uncharted or heavenly sword where they simply end in a days work for a hardcore gamer.

I never said it stopped them but why do you think games like Gran turismo, GTA etc. constantly get praised as 10 out of 10 games? Because they designed the games and kept refining it till they made it perfect. You can't just walk into a dev studio and make the ultimate game without having studied not only that genre but also the tools needed. A programmer who's working on realistic lighting is going to make better lighting than a casual developer who just got put to make a hardcore game. It's called experience douche.

I don't suggest poor companies do make expensive games they can't afford because that is stupid but you act like every casual game sells a million. They don't, it can be just as risky making a casual game only you don't invest in the game to make it stand out or have much merit.

I know your the kind of idiot that says unless you prove it it's not true but my opinion is I don't need to prove it. Basically it's common sense that if you have (here's a simple analogy for you) 5 cats chasing mice (hardcore game developing) and 2 decide to not make hardcore games (or chase mice)then your gonna get less mice chased. And about the future hardcore games, I never said it stopped them making hardcore games I just said it makes them less good at it.

Llost

Or maybe you simply are the wrong one. Oh let's omit the "maybe", better like that.

"Please provide an example?"

You provided the example yourself. Now Mario can be considered a casual game. Then it was definately considered a core game.

"Again, you're simply confused as to the definitions here. Because a game is hard to master does not make it a core game."

Of course it does. The first thing that has to be avoided in a casual gaming is any degree of frustration. Which is overly present in GH.

"Sorry. I know maybe your desperate to say it's not casual because that means you love a casual game - but it is casual."

I'm sorry, but your remark falls definately short (it's becoming an habit lately), since i definately dislike Guitar Hero.

"Umm, huh? How do you figure? More people enter the industry every single day."

And more leave it at the same time. I didn't mean that developers stop working on core games altogeter to make ONLY casual games, but if they allot resources to casual games, wuch resources cannot be used towards the development of core ones, It's pretty simple. The less casual games are created (to go flood the market with absolute shovelware), the more resources are available for core ones.

"Yah, umm. Good luck with that. Anyone familiar with the market research is giggling at you right now. "

We'll see at the end of the year, my dear "industry worker" (probably casual industry worker, seeing how fiercely you defend that crap). I'm sure you're really happy that the market is flooded with casual shovelware. Well, I'm not, and lots of other gamers, as you can see, aren't as well. Trends are normallt followed by counter-trends. It's just a matter of time.

Abriael

I also have to find it hilarious how you went on to insult a commentator's speaking style when he was simply mimicking Little Jacob, a character that you meet very early on in the story, and one who's most distinct and unforgettable quality early on is his near-undecipherable, raw Jamaican accent. It was glaringly obvious that the commentator was jokingly aping Jacob to anybody who's, say, played the game enough to make proper judgements on the acting.

This isn't something I usually say, but after something that moronic, it has to be asked: have you even played the game?

Zeliard

Spoony Bard

The post title is "Fuck Casual Gaming" did you not catch that?

DigitalHero

There, I feel better :-)

TKWarrior

Evil Tortie's Mom

mownkay

How about taking your own advise? Last I checked, I had just as much right to post my opinion as you do. I have no problems with people making a case for there's. Simply stating f-ck (insert whatever) is anything but.

If I 'TK'ed you, then I'm sorry someone disagreeing with you on a internet message board upsets you so much.

TKWarrior

Yah, that's pretty much how discussions on the internet work. It's Friday and I'm bored, so here I am. =)

OneFreeMan

Good… God… No.

That said, I do get fed enough information from them to know a thing or two about the position of casual games in the market. (Hint: They're here to stay. Forever.).

Metroid Prime 1 and 2, but I cannot play Metroid Prime 3 because the Wii was made to suit casual gamers with a motion control system that does not work very well, especially if you are playing in a smaller room. How is that fair to me, a gamer and consumer that supported the series since its inception?

Umm, not liking the control scheme and controller is one thing. But that doesn't have anything to do with casual games. The Wii supports casual games, yes, but that doesn't make all games on the console casual. Metroid Prime 3 is a perfect counter-example. It's not a casual game.

You really think that Pong was casual upon its original release? I guess we are done here, because all we can do is agree to disgree.

Yes, I do. My Mom and Dad played Pong. These are people who could not sort "A" from "B" on a NES controller if their life depended on it. Yet, they played Pong. Why? Because you could pick it up, understand the controls immediately, and the concept was extant - Pong. Hit the ball with the paddle.

Simple controls. Familiar concept. No learning curve. Fun for everyone. Yes. Pong is a perfect example of a casual game. Even when it was released. How can you possibly disagree?

OneFreeMan

That's the short-version. Long version HERE

+ Watch video

Whatever validity the sentiment might or might not have, freaking ROCKSTAR complaining about "causal games" (read: Wii) lessening the credibility of the industry is like Michael Bay pointing at "Iron Man" and going "Fuck mainstream Hollywood!!"

moviebob

agreed.

teh_joe

Side Note:
Your nickname fits, you've just TK'ed some posters on here who are not even trying to start an argument.

DigitalHero

mownkay

They hear you but they're not listening...

FunKrusher

...
Wow. And that was just in the first few comments. I can take the sarcasm and joking as much as anyone, but this sh-t is getting out of hand. It's the 'casual games are for non-gamers' article all over again. Did the Kotaku staff really think the comments here would be anything different then what's above?

I always held the belief that a gamer was judged by their love of gaming, not what games they played. Where's the 'Racing games are for gamers too poor to own a real car' and 'Sports games are for gamers too weak to play the real thing' articles?

I hate sports games, my finance hates FPS games. I guess not liking a genre of games without bashing it like a 7 year old means I can't be 'hardcorez' anymore. Oh well. Judging by most that call themselves HC, loosing that title nets you much more in IQ.

TKWarrior

it's funny because that's actually the definition of casual in a sense.

the mass appeal factor, along with the p/u and play factor.

FunKrusher

I do not mind casual games, but I do have a problem with casual games taking away games that I want to play, or changing them, and that is what is happening. I personally loved Metroid Prime 1 and 2, but I cannot play Metroid Prime 3 because the Wii was made to suit casual gamers with a motion control system that does not work very well, especially if you are playing in a smaller room. How is that fair to me, a gamer and consumer that supported the series since its inception?

You really think that Pong was casual upon its original release? I guess we are done here, because all we can do is agree to disgree.

Footix

FUCK boots.... HEY, it worked! :P

*puffs chest, high fives and struts off feeling tuff'n'stuff

ExistentialEgg

1: it's not the definition that changes overtime, but the games that fit each definition do.

Please provide an example? A game is casual because it is accessible, easy to pick up, able to be played at short intervals, etc. If a game is casual, it is casual. That's not going to change. Mario Bros. is a game my Mom could play if I handed her a controller. She might not be great at it, but she would probably have fun.

2: If you define GH accessible, then you probably never really played it. Guitar Hero is exactly the kind of game that normally intimidates casuals due to the abilities it requires. The fact that it could be loosely defined a party game doesn't make it a casual one.

Again, you're simply confused as to the definitions here. Because a game is hard to master does not make it a core game.

Casual primarily means accessible, and to play Guitar Hero you pretty much just need two hands and working eyeballs. Yes, you won't be playing Bark at the Moon on Expert as soon as you pick it up, but that's not what defines a game as casual or core.

Sorry. I know maybe your desperate to say it's not casual because that means you love a casual game - but it is casual.

I mean, by your argument Tetris would not be considered casual because most people wouldn't be able to beat it on the highest difficulty levels. Simply not true. It's casual because the average person can pick it up, play it for 10 minutes and have fun - exactly like Guitar Hero.

The number of developers is finite.

Umm, huh? How do you figure? More people enter the industry every single day. The number of developers is limited only by the number of consumers waiting to play their games.

The more jump on the casual bandwagon, the less games aimed at core gamers will be produced, it's simple maths.

Care to point to any devleoper of core games that have "jumped on the bandwagon" and stopped making core games entirely in favor of casual games? I'll wait patiently.

A counter trend, fueleed by games like GTA4, MGS4 and the others that will follow, and that will possibly put casual games back into the niche they belong to, or at least keep them at bay in favor of deeper games aimed at a core audience, would be absolutely welcome.

Yah, umm. Good luck with that. Anyone familiar with the market research is giggling at you right now.

OneFreeMan

zanzibarlegend

You're talking out of your ass man, stop it. The increase in casual games causes a reduction hardcore games? You must've missed the various articles pointing out the percentages of games sold and the hardcore demographic being a very small one, in the bigger picture.

Nextly you talk about money and replay value? Hey guy it cost big bucks to make a game and market it. Developers aren't your friend and aren't making the game YOU want them to pay tribute to your past time. They're in it to make money. Period, no arguement.

You claim that making less hardcore games then takes the focus of future hardcore games. Show me that proof please. Go ahead I'll wait.

It's up to a developer and their investors to determine how to apply their resources to a game. Again their in it to make money. So instead of developing a mega big budget blockbuster, that could fail and possibly bankrupt them or put them in debt. If they choose instead to make a game that has low production cost and development time and big returns that's on them. That's what's called an informed business decision not a hardcore vs. casual after thought.

But all in all your hardcore is less because of casual statement is seriously B.S. unless you of course you can show me that non-existent proof you got.

FunKrusher

zanzibarlegend

Arklop

The rest of what you said is utter garbage though, I think you know that and so with every post you make you're trying to insult me. I'm fine with it by the way, it adds to the humor as a whole.

Swearing isn't big, and it certainly isn't smart. In all honesty it makes you look like a bit of a thug more than anything else. I think it's where people get the idea of the GTA franchise appealing to even the lowest common denominator, see what I did there?

Anyway, you're adding nothing to the discussion now. You're adamant on proving me wrong and it just isn't working out for you because I'm not reacting in a way that would suit you, with monosyllabic curse words and the like.

If you really didn't care you surely wouldn't try to invoke an argument with me. But, while getting your kicks from insulting people with lower IQs may be how you roll, it certainly doesn't give me any satisfaction.

It's been fun, but you know. I can see this going back and forth all night long, and I need my beauty sleep -- I also need to finish GTAIV at some point -- see you around.

Fallible

Put the word "fuck" in front of anything you hate that's popular/trendy/proven/cool/etc.

Like... "FUCK casual gaming", or "FUCK global warming", or "FUCK children's laughter".

People will respect you and you'll sound badass to boot!

sandwiches

teh_joe

Clearly you haven't read a single piece of information on the subject. The mass-market appeal of casual games hitting demographics that are rarely touched by core games (teenaged girls, women over 30, men over 40, etc.) is not up for debate. It is fact.

People are not making casual games to "create gamers" they are making them because the research has already been done - the gamers are there just waiting for games to play.

If you took a poll of Wii owners that have bought anything beyond Wii Sports and Wii Fit I think you would be surprised. (I know I would not.)

And? The Wii is not the be-all, end-all of casual gaming.

Remember the early 1980's? More games brought the industry to screeching halt. Yes you did say good games, but these days the ease of making casual games has severely shifted the bad to good game ratio for the worse, resulting in enough shovelware to fill all the "virtual" landfills in New Mexico.

Would love to see where your numbers are coming from. I'm pretty sure if we stacked them side-by-side there have been just as many shoddy, craptastic core games lately as there have been throw-away casual games.

Again, you seem to be confusing "casual" with "bad."

No argument there. However, when people come in and try to change things the others have enjoyed for a long time that is a problem.

Okay? Since casual games have been a driving force in gaming since Pong I wonder who is coming in and trying to change things?

OneFreeMan

Abriael

tok1879

The number of developers is finite. The more jump on the casual bandwagon, the less games aimed at core gamers will be produced, it's simple maths. A counter trend, fueleed by games like GTA4, MGS4 and the others that will follow, and that will possibly put casual games back into the niche they belong to, or at least keep them at bay in favor of deeper games aimed at a core audience, would be absolutely welcome.

Abriael

Gray665

M

Flawless101

I agree with this point; however, the problem is casual games are not necessarily creating more gamers. If you took a poll of Wii owners that have bought anything beyond Wii Sports and Wii Fit I think you would be surprised. (I know I would not.)

2. More good games is a good thing.

Remember the early 1980's? More games brought the industry to screeching halt. Yes you did say good games, but these days the ease of making casual games has severely shifted the bad to good game ratio for the worse, resulting in enough shovelware to fill all the "virtual" landfills in New Mexico.

3. Treating gaming as an exclusive hobby and keeping out newcomers ON ANY LEVEL is a bad thing.

No argument there. However, when people come in and try to change things the others have enjoyed for a long time that is a problem. It would be like if I had a genuine interest in another culture, travelled to that country, and then started trying to enforce my own customs and norms on the people there.

4. Splitting our hobby into even smaller segments that can argue amongst themselves is a bad thing.

Agreed. This is your best point, and one that I have personally believed for years. The segments of "gaming" such as GirlGamer, GayGamer, Insert Race Here Gamer, and such are huge disappointments. Gamers should be gamers. It drives me nuts when people that consider themselves "gamers" are obviously more concerned with the fact that they are female, gay, straight, white, black, or what not.

I do have to say though, when you call something your hobby I believe that you have to be somewhat hardcore about it.

Footix

It's like the jocks in High School who think they're to cool for the non-popular folk to join the party.

On top of this, last I checked, GTA IV, a very "hardcore" game may have just broke not video game sales in one week, but the entire entertainment field records. So shill out, your "hardcore" games are not going anywhere.

Despacio

To use your own words. "It fails to impress me though, as well, I can't say I have that great of an opinion on you." That and ignore you just on the sole fact you think I'm using "big words". I initially didn't want to say "shit" so substituted excrement. It's too bad you think excrement is a big word and that you'd prefer expletives. So fuck off.

P.S. You don't seem like a total moron so I'm sure you'll be able to figure out how you were being a hypocrite in this discussion. Not my fault you couldn't have your cake, eat it and be the black pot calling a kettle black. I'm sure you'll figure it out someday. At least you know you're Fallible.

VeritasVierge

Because man, those jokes about balls and butts and sex NEVER get tired!

Capt. Struggle Bunny

there is, a place for every....and i repeat EVERY type of game. you cannot survive without casual games. sometimes its nice to get instant gratification. yes GTA4 is the shit, but Houser has got a case of Elephantitis down in the nether region. he needs to chill the eff out.

zanzibarlegend

I'm glad to see there's someone in the industry that isn't eager to jump on the bandwagon of the casuals.

I'm "in the industry" too and I don't know what bandwagon you're talking about or why you seem to think this is a recent phenomenon. Casual gaming has been a large and ever-present share of the gaming market since the earliest days of gaming. Compare Tetris to Dragon Warrior on the NES, for instance.

By the way, you're comparing today's games with the ones in the past. Not exactly a proper move, since we're talking about a completely different market and world.

Sorry, no. Casual is casual and hardcore is hardcore. The definitions don't change over time.

Also, funny to see you define guitar hero a casual game, considering how difficult it is, it's absolutely NOT casual friendly.

More solid evidence that you really don't understand what the words mean. I had friends over for Thanksgiving who don't own ANY consoles. I booted up Guitar Hero and handed them the controller and they had a fucking blast.

You think I could have done the same thing with Halo? Mass Effect?

Casual does not mean "easy," by the way. Accessible is not the same thing as easy.

In any case, I'm definately pleased.

At what? That some choad shot his mouth off? You think this actually signals some change in the industry?

Less casual games or games for kiddies that should be playing soccer in the field out of the house, more games for core gamers (which doesn't necessarily mean HARDcore gamers), and I'll be happy.

Again, the genres are not mutually exclusive. More casual titles does not equate with less core titles and I defy you to cite any data to suggest otherwise.

@LeLoi:

Casual by TODAYS standards; back then those games were probably considered ''hardcore'' seeing as how the video game industry was just in its infancy.

No, sorry. The games were as casual then as they are today.

OneFreeMan

And if there's one thing the review sites agree on, it's that GTA IV has shoddy gameplay (controls, missions, etc.).

So how is Rockstar pushing the "hardcore" gaming envelope, exactly? Oh wait, we're in the topsy-turvy post-PSX era where explosions/gore/FMV+pretentiousness = hardcore and solid gameplay = casual.

emag

Ain't nothin' casual about ping-pong. Have you ever been to a tournament? People slashing each other's throats with paddles. Testicles ripped off and used as ping-pong balls. It's crazy hardcore.

Sloopydrew

shouryuuken

7ucky

ScottG13

Let's just agree to disagree that the 'acting' in GTAIV is a damn sight better than what you'll find in virtually any other game, an exception I can think of is MGS.

Bye.

P.S.
Try using hypocrite in a proper manner next time, you know, when it's in context.

Fallible

their slightly scared at the coming changes and are verbally fighting back for their livelihood.

I mean honestly, you actually think that the "core" gaming market is going to flourish as much as it is now, in this golden age, as in the future?

IMO, I honestly don't know.

JohnnyLA

Playstation

ding ding

You sir do indeed get it.

FunKrusher

Ashkihyena

Sorry, but honestly, I don't think you're going to get rid of the casual games that easily.

Ashkihyena

Nintendo ignoring core gamers? Yeah okay there first party franchises end up usually being on the highend in terms of quality and fanbase.

Tell me what's so casual about collecting all the stars in SMG, or Zelda TP, Metroid Prime (series), hell even Excite Truck?

Go ahead I'll wait

FunKrusher

Abriael

They don't need to be dropped, people just need to understand what they mean in industry terms.

This isn't the "Casual vs. Hardcore" argument that goes on in a game like, say, World of Warcraft for example, where "Casual" gamers are those who play < 20 hours a week and "Hardcore" gamers are the ones who pound the virtual pavement every day.

In market/indstury terms there are very simple delinations. Casual games have mass-market appeal. Casual games can be "picked up and played" by the average person without use of a manual, strategy guide, or assistance from friends. Casual games can be played for short intervals (5-30 minutes at a time) and still be satisfying. etc.

Hardcore games are, basically, the opposite. They require time invested either online or in manuals to truly learn the ins-and-outs. They appeal to a particular niche market of gamers. They tend to require longer play sessions (RPG's with 1-2 hours between save points, for instance). They last longer from beginning to end, but tend to have less replayability.

So, no, in those terms Halo doesn't simply "turn casual" because you play it less often. It's a Hardcore game. Want evidence? Hand the controller to someone who hasn't played it in the midst of an online deathmatch and say "Try this game out." See how they do...

It's not hard to make the distinction. Provided, like I said, you actually understand what the words mean to begin with.

OneFreeMan