Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: What's So Wrong With Casuals?
  • Subject: What's So Wrong With Casuals?
Subject: What's So Wrong With Casuals?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
A real test of a man is if he is willing to scrape a sharpened razor up and down his junk just to please a woman.


Posted by: Ushan
Casuals are like Jews in WWII Germany. It doesn't make sense, but everybody hates you.
...Wow, that's got to be the best analogy ever.
Posted by: Hylebos
There's nothing wrong with casuals.

The problem is that many games these days sacrifice depth and difficulty to cater to casuals. Game Design is a balance. A game should absolutely be designed first and foremost with hardcore gamers in mind, with enough depth and interesting mechanics to keep them engaged, but at the same time, the game must be open and inviting to casuals, and encourage them to invest their time and trascend their own casualness.

If a game doesn't cater to casuals, you have a game like Dark Souls, which is still a beautiful game, but will not have a large fan base because it does not encourage the average joe to invest himself in the game.

If a game caters to casuals too much, then you have an easy game without any depth or substance.
I read this while touching my little sausage. The two aren't related, but you should know.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 2:39 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 2:34 AM PDT


Posted by: Awesomo95
OP OMG GET ON MY LVL
lol everytime i see this i imagine him saying that to Det. stabler (frgt real name)

  • 12.17.2012 4:35 AM PDT

because it makes all the games samey, hell look at gears judgement, i understand they're doing this from a business side so that games sell more, but they're hurting a good chunk of the loyal fanbase

  • 12.17.2012 4:38 AM PDT


Posted by: PheonixofLight
I suspect it is somewhat because people like to take games too seriously. They are competitive in real life, and it translates over, or they can't express that competitiveness without the use of video games.


I'd imagine it's something like this. Fun may be subjective to the player, but so many people throw a hissy fit when things aren't to their exact specifications it's embarassing.

The people who hate casuals, what they stand for, and only play competitively--ever--aren't competitives. They're tryhards, by definition.

  • 12.17.2012 4:40 AM PDT

Country: United States.
State: Pennsylvania.
County: Warren.
I graduated from high school on June-11-2011. I'm 19 right now. I'm turning 20 in December. I like playing video games, and board games. I like reading Sci-Fi, and World War II novels, and what not.

"There is nothing better in the world than being better at a video game than someone else....oh wait"

Posted by: Cheesusslice
^^

that wasn't funny

I know. That really got inside mein kampfort zone anne frankly I'm fuhrerious.

  • 12.17.2012 4:41 AM PDT


Posted by: What is thiss
because it makes all the games samey, hell look at gears judgement, i understand they're doing this from a business side so that games sell more, but they're hurting a good chunk of the loyal fanbase
loyal fanbase =/= competitive players.

  • 12.17.2012 4:43 AM PDT


Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: What is thiss
because it makes all the games samey, hell look at gears judgement, i understand they're doing this from a business side so that games sell more, but they're hurting a good chunk of the loyal fanbase
loyal fanbase =/= competitive players.

A decent portion of the fanbase is competitive players.

  • 12.17.2012 4:44 AM PDT

It's open for interpretation. As you see it, I have trouble seeing you as anything but a casual. But to go up to an artist drawing a masterpiece and exclaim, "isn't art only a drawing?" is, well, silly.

I think is this thread there is too much focus on casual vs competitive rather than casual vs hardcore. Hardcore as in interpreting games as an art form and delving into the virtual world as much as you can.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 4:57 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 4:54 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Because all of the competitive gamers can't I loosen their uptight pants and have some dumb fun. People who play backyard football aren't hated, so why should gamers that play for fun? You can say 'blah blah, they ruin the market,' but it makes pub stomping easier every day. If you competitively game, you probably know enough people to make your own team and play with friends and not random people.

  • 12.17.2012 5:09 AM PDT


Posted by: Marinade
All I learnt from this thread is that many people have different, and often erroneous, ideas of what a casual gamer is. They then use the assumptions they've made about a group of people they don't know to make negative stereotypes about them.

Most of you seem to lump mid-core gamers as casual gamers without actually realizing there is a difference. They see it as there are only two types of gamers: hardcore, or competitive, gamers and casual gamers. Which is an exceptionally limited and naive view of the situation.


this

  • 12.17.2012 5:11 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

I came for Halo, but I heard the Tru7h, fought thru Carnage, and stayed for Bungie.

No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.--Teddy Roosevelt

Posted by: Ushan
Casuals are like Jews in WWII Germany. It doesn't make sense, but everybody hates you.
Who would be Hitler in this case?

  • 12.17.2012 5:21 AM PDT

The Snow Leopard's wisdom includes: Understanding one's shadow-side; trusting one's inner-self; agility; strength; the ability to stalk; understanding the power of silence.

Look at games from this generation and last generation, OP. There used to be a very noticeable line between "hardcore" and "casual" games, but now there isn't. Every single game can be beaten in a day or two, and you never hear people saying that they can't beat a game anymore. Games are simply about instant gratification now, as there isn't any learning curve and everything is super easy to play. Even casual games provided some challenge a generation or two ago, but now they simply don't.

  • 12.17.2012 5:34 AM PDT


Posted by: dpking1
They ruin the team.

Overly competitive people ruin the team far more than a bad player.

  • 12.17.2012 5:42 AM PDT

"If practice makes perfect" and 'nobody's perfect,' then what's the point of practice?"

This thread is full of filthy casuals.

I'm outta here. I'm gonna play farmville.

  • 12.17.2012 5:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Gh0st is Bad
The casual gaming mindset has led to a massive increase in the production of shallow and mindlessly easy games such as Call of Duty and the Wii.

  • 12.17.2012 5:55 AM PDT

Posted by: Seneka The 5th
Look at games from this generation and last generation, OP. There used to be a very noticeable line between "hardcore" and "casual" games, but now there isn't. Every single game can be beaten in a day or two, and you never hear people saying that they can't beat a game anymore. Games are simply about instant gratification now, as there isn't any learning curve and everything is super easy to play. Even casual games provided some challenge a generation or two ago, but now they simply don't.

Just because game design philosophy has changed, does not mean that games now are any more/less challenging.


I would argue that old games were not necessarily "hard" they were just veeeeeeery tedious. And if you messed up once, it was game over. They were artificially long so that they could not be regularly "beaten." Such as how games used to not have Save points.

Was Mario really harder than Algalon, The Observer in WoW? I'd say absolutely not.

The skills games use has shifted. But again, this doesn't make anything require any more or less skill. but how does one "Beat" Halo's multiplayer? They do not. It's ongoing. And a lot of games are like that. Stories in games are to tell a story. Why does a story game have to be artificially "hard"? If I'm playing for the story, and the game is overly punishing, I'm not playing the game.


So I propose a question: What old games are hard, and why?
If it's because they're brutally punishing for dying - that's just artificial hardness. It has nothing to do with skill and only rewards muscle memory. Nothing like a dynamic fight in a modern game that changes every time.

  • 12.17.2012 6:02 AM PDT

A simple life.

I'm fine with casuals. It's quite fun to start up a game and immediately know that everyone you are playing with is so horrible that you can win with your eyes closed

  • 12.17.2012 6:03 AM PDT


Posted by: Hylebos
The problem is that many games these days sacrifice depth and difficulty to cater to casuals.

No, they sacrifice certain measures of depth and difficulty to expand their player base, with the added people being a mix of competitive and casual players. I know people that were great at Call of Duty and play competitively on every game they touch, that didn't even give the Halo series a passing glance until this release.

Posted by: Hylebos
Game Design is a balance. A game should absolutely be designed first and foremost with hardcore gamers in mind, with enough depth and interesting mechanics to keep them engaged, but at the same time, the game must be open and inviting to casuals, and encourage them to invest their time and trascend their own casualness.

I think you're confusing "hardcore gamers" with "their existing fanbase", as if all players that have been fans of Halo for several years are hardcore. It's far too common of a mistake to make on a gaming-oriented website, but lo and behold, it continues.

Posted by: Hylebos
If a game doesn't cater to casuals, you have a game like Dark Souls, which is still a beautiful game, but will not have a large fan base because it does not encourage the average joe to invest himself in the game.

What? For a new IP (to the Xbox, at least), Dark Souls has an above average sized fanbase, at least enough to garner a sequel.

A better example would have been Shadowrun, which focused so heavily on the competitive community, that they completely forgot to make it as accessible to those who aren't as familiar with first-person shooters. The results of that speak for itself; to say that they should focus on the competitive community first and foremost is as ridiculous as it is naive.

  • 12.17.2012 6:04 AM PDT


Posted by: Satisfaxion

Posted by: dpking1
They ruin the team.

Overly competitive people ruin the team far more than a bad player.


Elaborate

  • 12.17.2012 6:12 AM PDT


Posted by: Blacknight159

Posted by: Satisfaxion

Posted by: dpking1
They ruin the team.

Overly competitive people ruin the team far more than a bad player.


Elaborate

That somebody screaming into your headset to do better and betraying for power weapons might be a deterrent to having fun? Does that really need an elaboration?

  • 12.17.2012 6:14 AM PDT

Halo 4

  • 12.17.2012 6:17 AM PDT

hmm

Halo is only fun when you play multiplayer competitively.

  • 12.17.2012 6:17 AM PDT

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ~ Mark Twain

The problem is with casuals is they expect a game to be nerfed and dumbed down so they can enjoy it.

They deserve more hate than colonels on Halo 3 because they don't just ruin the match you're in, they ruin the entire design of the game. They've destroyed the best game series on xbox.

  • 12.17.2012 6:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like Cheese

Maybe offtopic, but I love Skyrim.
Does it make me a Casual?

  • 12.17.2012 6:18 AM PDT


Posted by: thebig100
Maybe offtopic, but I love Skyrim.
Does it make me a Casual?

*shakes magic 8-ball*

It is decidedly so.

  • 12.17.2012 6:20 AM PDT