What is "a casual"?

I see this come up alot. People talk about casuals and hardcores. For some reason, people think that there are certain games that a casual gamer plays.

For example, if I work 40 hours a week, have a life outside of work and only play video games a couple hours a week, well then I guess that makes me a casual. So by that logic, I must buy games like Mario Party because according to everyone here, that's the kind of stuff that "casuals" play.

Apparently I can't buy Gears of War or a game like that because I don't play my xbox 24 hours a day so I'm not "hardcore". What does the amount of time a person plays have to do with the kind of game they like? If anything, someone who would buy these games people list as for "casuals", it would be children.

You think someone would spend 400 dollars on a console and only buy crappy games after they invested all that money?

Please enlighten me.

Ignore most people who use the word casual.

The definition of casual has been changed from casual gamer to, specifically: A meathead who refuses to play games unless they are extremely violent and popular, based on said meathead's favorite movie series, or a sports game. Gears of War is probably one of the best examples of a "casual" game, since it includes shooting, gratuitous violence, shallow sci-fi, and it's popular.

Some people hate "casuals" because simply because they aren't hardcore. Other people hate them because their abundance is greatly damaging the industry. Which is definetely true, but it's not like they're intentionally attacking videogames...

Casuals are ppl who have a life outside of videogames. :Dmike7677

Sums it all up into one amazing statement.

Casuals are ppl who have a life outside of videogames. :Dmike7677

Exactly.

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

casuals would most likely not have an account on a games site, not know what e3 and TGS wasand will buy big, popular "safe" games such as gears, halo, mario party and fifa. That is my definition...HellsAngel2c

Ignore most people who use the word casual.

The definition of casual has been changed from casual gamer to, specifically: A meathead who refuses to play games unless they are extremely violent and popular, based on said meathead's favorite movie series, or a sports game. Gears of War is probably one of the best examples of a "casual" game, since it includes shooting, gratuitous violence, shallow sci-fi, and it's popular.

Some people hate "casuals" because simply because they aren't hardcore. Other people hate them because their abundance is greatly damaging the industry. Which is definetely true, but it's not like they're intentionally attacking videogames...

AquaMantor

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

H3LLRaiseR

casuals would most likely not have an account on a games site, not know what e3 and TGS wasand will buy big, popular "safe" games such as gears, halo, mario party and fifa. That is my definition...HellsAngel2c

Yepp that's what I think about when I hear casual.

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

H3LLRaiseR

Who said that casuals was something bad, it's just a term to make it more easy for others to understand what kind of people you're talking about. I wouldn't feel bad if someone called me a casual soccer player or something.

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

H3LLRaiseR

So Nintendo (specifically Reggie), EA, Ubisoft, The New York Times and other users of the term 'casual' who claim to be proponents of casual gaming are in reality deeply opposed to casual gaming and think people who fall into said categoryare stupid? I gotta disagree with you on this one.

Ignore most people who use the word casual.

The definition of casual has been changed from casual gamer to, specifically: A meathead who refuses to play games unless they are extremely violent and popular, based on said meathead's favorite movie series, or a sports game. Gears of War is probably one of the best examples of a "casual" game, since it includes shooting, gratuitous violence, shallow sci-fi, and it's popular.

Some people hate "casuals" because simply because they aren't hardcore. Other people hate them because their abundance is greatly damaging the industry. Which is definetely true, but it's not like they're intentionally attacking videogames...

AquaMantor

I pretty much agreed with that 100% except the last sentence, casuals didn't damage the industry, high development costs so that devs. couldn't make the games they want damaged/is damaging the industry.

There's about 500 ways people use the term casual on this board

1. A person that doesn't play many games

2. a person that only plays popular games

3. a pc gamer refering to a console gamer

4. a person who only plays kiddy or minigames

pick anyone and ignore the person who says it.

I see this come up alot. People talk about casuals and hardcores. For some reason, people think that there are certain games that a casual gamer plays.

For example, if I work 40 hours a week, have a life outside of work and only play video games a couple hours a week, well then I guess that makes me a casual. So by that logic, I must buy games like Mario Party because according to everyone here, that's the kind of stuff that "casuals" play.

Apparently I can't buy Gears of War or a game like that because I don't play my xbox 24 hours a day so I'm not "hardcore". What does the amount of time a person plays have to do with the kind of game they like? If anything, someone who would buy these games people list as for "casuals", it would be children.

You think someone would spend 400 dollars on a console and only buy crappy games after they invested all that money?

Please enlighten me.

lagwagon113

Well, the distinction that's being made being casual and hardcore players is rather a recent trend, especially since the release of the Wii. I think the difference lies not in what type of game you play, but moreso to your devotion and interest to gaming in general. For me, the video game industry in the 80's and 90's was very much akin to the comic book industry, in the sense that if you were a fan, you were probably really into the medium. What most would consider hardcore today.

Recently, video games have been getting broader attention and their appeal has changed. In my view, the industry has shifted and become similar to movies in many ways, including the difference in fan appreciation and devotion. When it comes to movies, you could watch five a year, or you could also buy 500 a year. I think gaming is becoming a lot like this these days, and that's largely due to it becoming less and less insular over time. To me, using the term "casual gaming" is in the same vein as saying "casual movie watcher", though I'm sure others will disagree.

Ignore most people who use the word casual.

The definition of casual has been changed from casual gamer to, specifically: A meathead who refuses to play games unless they are extremely violent and popular, based on said meathead's favorite movie series, or a sports game. Gears of War is probably one of the best examples of a "casual" game, since it includes shooting, gratuitous violence, shallow sci-fi, and it's popular.

Some people hate "casuals" because simply because they aren't hardcore. Other people hate them because their abundance is greatly damaging the industry. Which is definetely true, but it's not like they're intentionally attacking videogames...

AquaMantor

Labelling a game as casual or hardcore based on its popularity and/or level of violence is completely arbitrary. Forza 2 is incredibly deep, yet it has sold a lot more copies than Ridge Racer 6. Does that make Forza 2 more casual than RR6? Gear of War isn't the deepest shooter on the market, but given the emphasis on cover, a good variety of enemies and intelligent level designs, its a fairly deep game (deeper than the likes of say Doom 3 or Quake 4).

Also, I don't think casual games are damaging the market. I have little respect for such games, but I recognize that they are appealing to a different group of people than traditional games. I don't see any harm in casual games, so long as the quality/quantity of hardcore games stays high, and given what was shown off at the last E3 and announced subsequently (Prototype looks hot) I don't see anything to worry about. And if EA stops excreting hardcore games (the decline of EA Big has been truly sad) and focuses more on casual games, so much the better.

For example, if I work 40 hours a week, have a life outside of work and only play video games a couple hours a week, well then I guess that makes me a casual. lagwagon113

Yes, you are.

So by that logic, I must buy games like Mario Party because according to everyone here, that's the kind of stuff that "casuals" play.lagwagon113

As a casual gamer you are more likely to buy that type of game than other titles, but no one is restricted to any title.

Dont know where everyone else is getting these definitions of "casual" or not. Why not juse use the definition everyone else uses that you can find in the dictionary? Someone that plays games casually is someone that plays games every so often and not constantly. What you play has no bearing on being hardcore or casual. How often you play does. However, how often you play does dictate which titles you are more likely to buy due to time restraints.

*Sigh*...alright, I'll explain how casuals are uintentionally damaging the market:

Well, let's use a metaphor here...I don't know, cake. Alright, so let's say that a whole lot of people eat cake. Not everyone eats cake, but a whole lot of people do. And for that reason, since there's a lot of people who eat this cake, it's become a booming industry. Now, let's say that there are some people who eat all kinds of good cake, the hardcore cake-eaters, and then the people who don't eat very much cake, and only eat the cake that's very popular, the cake that their friends like. Now, let's say that the latter outweighs the former 3 to 1. What's going to happen? Well, because most people buy cake, but not very much of it, the kind of cake that sells won't just sell, it will sell EXCELLENTLY. Up into the millions. However, remember that these people don't buy very much cake, so they'll just buy what's popular, meaning that the unpopular cake will sell almost nothing. Therefore, there will be a huge, huge gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. There won't be any 'mildly successful' or 'mildly unsuccessful'. It's a direct hit or miss, a gain or loss of billions. The baker with the successful cake will be able to afford new ingredients, it will be able to improve all the cake that it makes with the sheer, ridiculous amount of money that it has. The unsuccessful baker will have to get the better ingredients, too, just for the sake of competing, just so that they have a chance at success. However, they won't succeed. The successful baker will just improve the cake that they've already made, and brand-recognition will get everything to buy their cake. The unsuccessful baker will never be given a chance because most consumers only buy 1 or 2 pieces of cake a year, and when they do it will be a kind of cake that's already successful.

Okay, horrible analogy, but you get where I'm coming from here. The problem with the games industry, in my mind, is that there's a huge gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. It makes everything a lot harder for developers. The reason for this is because of casuals, who only buy the popular games that everyone else has already bought, and buy 2 games a year at the maximum. This reinforces the success of the successful and reinforces the failure of the failures. The industry may very well end up crashing because of it.

*Sigh*...alright, I'll explain how casuals are uintentionally damaging the market:

Well, let's use a metaphor here...I don't know, cake. Alright, so let's say that a whole lot of people eat cake. Not everyone eats cake, but a whole lot of people do. And for that reason, since there's a lot of people who eat this cake, it's become a booming industry. Now, let's say that there are some people who eat all kinds of good cake, the hardcore cake-eaters, and then the people who don't eat very much cake, and only eat the cake that's very popular, the cake that their friends like. Now, let's say that the latter outweighs the former 3 to 1. What's going to happen? Well, because most people buy cake, but not very much of it, the kind of cake that sells won't just sell, it will sell EXCELLENTLY. Up into the millions. However, remember that these people don't buy very much cake, so they'll just buy what's popular, meaning that the unpopular cake will sell almost nothing. Therefore, there will be a huge, huge gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. There won't be any 'mildly successful' or 'mildly unsuccessful'. It's a direct hit or miss, a gain or loss of billions. The baker with the successful cake will be able to afford new ingredients, it will be able to improve all the cake that it makes with the sheer, ridiculous amount of money that it has. The unsuccessful baker will have to get the better ingredients, too, just for the sake of competing, just so that they have a chance at success. However, they won't succeed. The successful baker will just improve the cake that they've already made, and brand-recognition will get everything to buy their cake. The unsuccessful baker will never be given a chance because most consumers only buy 1 or 2 pieces of cake a year, and when they do it will be a kind of cake that's already successful.

Okay, horrible analogy, but you get where I'm coming from here. The problem with the games industry, in my mind, is that there's a huge gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. It makes everything a lot harder for developers. The reason for this is because of casuals, who only buy the popular games that everyone else has already bought, and buy 2 games a year at the maximum. This reinforces the success of the successful and reinforces the failure of the failures. The industry may very well end up crashing because of it.

AquaMantor

That is true in most every industry. I attribute it more to the effect of positive word of mouth than casuals in the sense that you use the word (you and I have different definitions of the word, but I understand your definition). Great word of mouth being a big deal isn't a trend restricted to games or to casual gamers. Besides, to run with your cake baking analogy, think of the industry as a series of bakeries, most of which least a couple bakers. The success of a baker's cakes puts more money in the pocket of the bakery. Of course the bakery is going to ask the guy to make more cakes, but they are also going to offer opportunities to other promising bakers, because the only thing better than 1 million selling cake is 2 million selling cakes. Also,cakes don't need to sell millions (or even a million) to be successful. Games like Katamari Damancy, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the NIS tactical rpgs don't put up huge numbers, but they are clearly profitable, judging by the number of games in the series.

To break away completely from the cake analogy, XBL and PSN offer developers ways to distribute low cost games for small amounts of money, and XBL and PSN also offer offer demos of offline games, and demos are a great way to counter consumer conservatism (there is nothing like hands on experience). On most systems, new franchises and developers are rising all of the time (the Playstations has been dominated by different franchises and developers each generation and I doubt that this generation will prove the exception to the rule). While every industry trend doesn't thrill me, I am not worried that any trend threatens the industry.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

ikwal

Who said that casuals was something bad, it's just a term to make it more easy for others to understand what kind of people you're talking about. I wouldn't feel bad if someone called me a casual soccer player or something.

Anytime I see the word used in a videogame forum, its almost always within a negative context. I doubt you'd like being called a "casual soccer player" if people blamed you for ruining the game or told stories about how bad you are so that they too could ridicule you.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]

Its a useless generalization that people throw around to make themselves feel superior to other gamers. Because if someone doesn't have advanced knowledge of and skill at videogames then they are obviously very stupid and have no business embracing this industry.

CarnageHeart

So Nintendo (specifically Reggie), EA, Ubisoft, The New York Times and other users of the term 'casual' who claim to be proponents of casual gaming are in reality deeply opposed to casual gaming and think people who fall into said categoryare stupid? I gotta disagree with you on this one.

Sorry, I suppose I should have been more clear about the "people" I was talking about. What I meant were those on gaming forums. Though I don't see the gaming companies tossing the word around too often.

I don't see the logic about casual gamers being people who have a life outside videogames. Not all gamers are school children. Also, one can be socially devoid and spend his time playing virtua tennis.

It is IMO on what games you spend your gaming hours. Plus, you can be hardcore at something but not a hardcore gamer. Plus, hardcore gamers do play casual games, but casual gamers rarely if ever pick up Megaman and complete it.

Casual Gamers are the ones who say good luck before a match Hardcore gamers are the ones that swear at you when you kill them and blame it on lagg, glitching, unfair teams etc... I know which one I would rather beLukethepro

Actually, what you describe as hardcore actually falls into the scrub category.

I'm hardcore and I barely talk at all during a match.

In my opinion the difference between a hardcore and a casual gamer has nothing to do with the difference in the amount of time/money they spend on their hobby, because thats totally socio-political (I.e. how much disposable income I have, and free time to play based on my circumstances). Its all about the difference in knowledge/passion for the medium.

For example Id expect to be able to have a great complex discussion about the impact certain developers have had on advancing certain genre's in gaming with a hardcore gamer. Id expect them to understand and comprehend the workings behind the game industry and be on top of the latest news and development, out of pure interest. Casual gamers at most care that the game there're playing is fun or has a charcater/brand they recognize and want to be a part of. Some people only play Pro Evo for hours on end everyday but I wouldnt call them hardcore.

The hardcore ideally should be somebody who appreciates every aspect of gaming, as well as a wide variety of gaming. Finally concerning casuals ruining gaming for us. The problem is basically in the tunnel vision it creates. Me-too games become numerous and fresh concepts/ideas become sparse and few between.

[QUOTE="Lukethepro"]Casual Gamers are the ones who say good luck before a match Hardcore gamers are the ones that swear at you when you kill them and blame it on lagg, glitching, unfair teams etc... I know which one I would rather beDarkCatalyst

Actually, what you describe as hardcore actually falls into the scrub category.

I'm hardcore and I barely talk at all during a match.

Ya, those type of people who threaten to kill you because you fragged them, or they point you out for camping, or being cheap by catching them off guard so many times, are people with serious issues and probably don't have anything else in their life worth living for. Those are called losers. Please, do not confuse hardcore gamers with losers.

I'm hardcore. I say a hardcore gamer is someone who is passionate about gaming, the history, and the culture that surrounds it. Some who are hardcore don't just play games to have fun, they play so they can learn because they may be aspiring to get into the gaming field be it journalism, programming, or other types of developing.

Casuals are the ones that can play for an hour or two straight, and that'll satisfy them for a few days. I don't have a problem with it, but just don't come in here claiming you have a "life" and hardcore gamers don't because you're a self-proclaimed casual to help you sleep better at night. Most of you posting in here aren't casual anyways. A lot of casuals don't even have an idea what the word "casual" means in gaming terms.

In my opinion the difference between a hardcore and a casual gamer has nothing to do with the difference in the amount of time/money they spend on their hobby, because thats totally socio-political (I.e. how much disposable income I have, and free time to play based on my circumstances). Its all about the difference in knowledge/passion for the medium. For example Id expect to be able to have a great complex discussion about the impact certain developers have had on advancing certain genre's in gaming with a hardcore gamer. Id expect them to understand and comprehend the workings behind the game industry and be on top of the latest news and development, out of pure interest. Casual gamers at most care that the game there're playing is fun or has a charcater/brand they recognize and want to be a part of. Some people only play Pro Evo for hours on end everyday but I wouldnt call them hardcore.The hardcore ideally should be somebody who appreciates every aspect of gaming, as well as a wide variety of gaming. Finally concerning casuals ruining gaming for us. The problem is basically in the tunnel vision it creates. Me-too games become numerous and fresh concepts/ideas become sparse and few between.Arath_1

Would someone that only plays, say two or three games, and couldnt really answer any of your questions about anything besides those games count as hardcore? Would if he was a proffesional Korean Starcraft player? I mean, he only plays and really knows one game. Is he a casual?

Would someone that only plays, say two or three games, and couldnt really answer any of your questions about anything besides those games count as hardcore? Would if he was a proffesional Korean Starcraft player? I mean, he only plays and really knows one game. Is he a casual?

XaosII

To answer your question with another question, would somebody who has seen Star Wars hundreds of time be a real movie connoisseur? Who knows every line and every detail? Not really because its morefanaticism, addiction or obssesion that drives them rather than a passion. Also again thats a socio-political point which not everyone has control over, knowledge/passion really set the hardcore apart, at least in my mind. Like I said somebody who plays Fifa everyday and only Fifa for hours on end is no hardcore gamer to my mind.

Some people play WoW for 12 hours a day Id say its definately hardcore in terms of commitment, but for some its the only game they play and they are no hardcore gamer. I think my point is clear (edited first post, stupid Firefox).

i think when people try to group others into catergories to be derogatory it's just illogical. what if i like mario, sports games, and games that others find casual? isn't gaming all about having fun? oh wait, that's what it used to be before everyone got so tense about who is casual and who is hard-core.s0njas0n

Not really. Like I said its about the wealth of games you appreciate. I really enjoy playing Double Dash with my friends and its not exactly the deepest game out there, games arent hardcore or casual (well arguably they arent, though some people might claim games like DMC3, Ninja Gaiden, or old school games like Ghost and Ghouls, etc, are...) people are, I think its an important distinction. Just because a game is accessible doesnt make it casual, just because it has mass market appeal doesnt make it casual.

Again its the peoplethat createthe industry.

The problem is many hardcore gamers, who have a broader perception of the industry see games solely targeted at the casual audience as destructive to the industry. Let me again expand, an accessible game, doesnt mean its only for casual gamers (the Forza example was good), great games are great games and should/will be appreciated by everybody, however when POORLY designed games, with lacking depth start discouraging accessible games with a wealth of content its no wonder the hardcore gamer feel frustrated that their medium is being dumbed down in order to make as much money as possible.

Examples likeTrue Crime are testament to this. Its a complex discussion no doubt especially given everybody's opinion and view on the matter. However its the individual that either is or isnt and this isnt determined by time/money because those are socio-political aspects of a persons lives that not everybodyhas control over.

To answer your question with another question, would somebody who has seen Star Wars hundreds of time be a real movie connoisseur? Who knows every line and every detail? Not really because its morefanaticism, addiction or obssesion that drives them rather than a passion. Also again thats a socio-political point which not everyone has control over, knowledge/passion really set the hardcore apart, at least in my mind. Like I said somebody who plays Fifa everyday and only Fifa for hours on end is no hardcore gamer to my mind.

Some people play WoW for 12 hours a day Id say its definately hardcore in terms of commitment, but for some its the only game they play and they are no hardcore gamer. I think my point is clear (edited first post, stupid Firefox).Arath_1

Unfortunately, your comparison is flawed because the mediums are too different. That may be why, i think, your perception of what you consider "hardcore" is off. That would be kinda like asking if an audiophile is a real audiophile if he only owns one complete set of equipmentt. Aside from the fact that owning more than one set of equipment is practically impossible for most people, what he owns, as an audiophile, has little or no bearing on what makes an audiophile.

Independant of that, your statements actually still agrees with mine, though i guess i should have broadened it. A hardcore/casual gamer is defined by how much time they spend doing gaming related things. Your definition of a hardcore gamer is impossible for someone with little time. Yet, i think, its a bit silly to limit it to just knowing alot about its entirety, especially when most of the self proclaimed hardcore gamers that fit into your definition have never played professionally, or have, say, joined a mod team wokring 20 - 30 hours a week on it (and consequently has limited the games hes played down to only 3 or 4 games as well as how much general informaiton he knows on games besides the one he's modding). Yet, i fail to see why the modder or pro player is less hardcore?

Unfortunately, your comparison is flawed because the mediums are too different. That may be why, i think, your perception of what you consider "hardcore" is off. That would be kinda like asking if an audiophile is a real audiophile if he only owns one complete set of equipmentt. Aside from the fact that owning more than one set of equipment is practically impossible for most people, what he owns, as an audiophile, has little or no bearing on what makes an audiophile.

Independant of that, your statements actually still agrees with mine, though i guess i should have broadened it. A hardcore/casual gamer is defined by how much time they spend doing gaming related things. Your definition of a hardcore gamer is impossible for someone with little time. Yet, i think, its a bit silly to limit it to just knowing alot about its entirety, especially when most of the self proclaimed hardcore gamers that fit into your definition have never played professionally, or have, say, joined a mod team wokring 20 - 30 hours a week on it (and consequently has limited the games hes played down to only 3 or 4 games as well as how much general informaiton he knows on games besides the one he's modding). Yet, i fail to see why the modder or pro player is less hardcore?XaosII

Ah but in my opinion movie's and game's have a lot in common. Its reasonable for somebody to watch many movies and appreciate different genres, as with games, while as you stated its very rare that an audiophile would own more than one set of equipment. That being said his knowledge (inhis fieldof interest)and understanding probably far outstrips mine. Again my keypoint relating to money and time is that these are aspects of our live usually outwith of our control (to a lesser or greater extent). If I have a 40 hour a week job and a familly I cannot spend or play as much as perhaps a teenager with a part time job.

I agree that gaming related things is probably a more adequate statement of what defines the difference between casual/hardcore. To use myself as an example I cannot afford more than a game a month (a brand new one, not second hand, only recently have I been granted access to that market by moving to the UK), yet everyday I come and check every gaming site I can, I had the opportunity to meet Hideo Kojima in person and spend hours pouring over everything from developer diaries to hands-on previews to watching trailers. I consider myself well versed in what makes this industry tick, and have an understanding of what drives the market as well as an appreciation for a place within it for different games, development approaches, etc

Id like to consider myself a hardcore gamer.

And Id wager to say that anybody working in aMod team is well versed in the industry and respective genre. Pro gamers, are that, proffesional gamers.There's no reason they cannot be both hardcore and pro (in fact I wouldnt be surprised if many were) there not exclusive to one another, however being pro or spending 20 - 30 hours a week working on a mod doesnt automatically tag youas a hardcore gameras by the definition Im trying to put across it takes a breadth of knowledge to ascertain this.

Again not every CAN spend a large amount of time & money on games, its outwidth some people's control so it shouldbe by no means a defining factor.

The passion and desire to understand/know about the industry is something you can have irrespective of your socio-political background and hence is, in my opinion, a much better yard stick against which a casual and hardcore gamer can be defined.

I agree that passion and the desire to learn about all apsects of gaming separates the "casual" from the "hardcore". I, personally, would rather see both terms disappear for good, but it doesn't look like that'll happen for a generation or two.

For example:

Let's say two gamers LOVE Super Mario 64. The "hardcore" gamer would comment on the perfect controls, the steady camera, the consistent frame rate. etc. The "casual" would sound more like the people from those montages that play at E3. "This game is just...awesome. It's fun, it feels right, and I could lose myself for hours at a time", or something like that. Both people are actually saying the same exact thing, but their perspectives are very different.

If you want to go to extremes:

Miyamoto walks into the room. The "hardcore" will gasp, bow, ask for an autograph, faint, etc. The "casual" would say "Who are you? How did you get into my house!??"

In this sense, "casual" and "hardcore" cannot be measured by how often you play, what you play, and how much you enjoy playing it. There is much more to the industry than the final product. People who just love games are, at most, "casual". People who love gaming, and everything that goes into it, are "hardcore".

Ah but in my opinion movie's and game's have a lot in common. Its reasonable for somebody to watch many movies and appreciate different genres, as with games, while as you stated its very rare that an audiophile would own more than one set of equipment. That being said his knowledge (inhis fieldof interest)and understanding probably far outstrips mine. Again my keypoint relating to money and time is that these are aspects of our live usually outwith of our control (to a lesser or greater extent). If I have a 40 hour a week job and a familly I cannot spend or play as much as perhaps a teenager with a part time job...

*snip* - reduced size

...The passion and desire to understand/know about the industry is something you can have irrespective of your socio-political background and hence is, in my opinion, a much better yard stick against which a casual and hardcore gamer can be defined.

Arath_1

I agree with some of your points, but i think im going to have to disagree overall. Lets take into consideration this scenario:

Theres an old man. Hes in his 70's, maybe even his 80's. Hes a retired Creative Director for a small Graphic Design firm - it might have even been his own company. He's had a good 30 years working there and now that hes retired hes got a lot of free time.

He was never big into gaming, but hes gotten some interest in it now that he has more free time. He does like FPS/Fighting/Action/RTS games because he finds them too competative and too twitch based for his old reflexes. RPG's are a bit too text heavy and he has trouble reading them on monitors/TV's. TBS games he somewhat enjoys and fires up a round of Civ 4 once in a while. The only games he really likes are flight sims. It doesnt take much out of him to enjoy it and he rarely plays online since he cant keep up with many of the younger players. He likes the fact he cant get that type of experience anywhere else except for games.

His love of Flgiht Sims has gotten him interested in joining a mod team ad he does so. In his spare time, as a retiree, he can put 30, even 40 hours a week toward the mod team. With his years of experience in a graphic design company he puts out solid work, is responsible, and genuinely enjoys what he does. At worst, his work is comparable to that of the game developers and often times superior.

Incidently, my scenario has actually happened a few times in the Il2-Sturmovik modding community. Many of them were WWII veterans that are now retired.

Is he a hardcore gamer? Is he a casual gamer? What does he need to do to fit the context of your definiton of hardcore gamer? By my understanding, he would have to read up on and play games he has no interest in, which doesnt make much sense. I would argue that that old man, is about 10 times more hardcore than most GS forum users - especially the "360 sux! PSTriple 4 life!" System Wars forumites.

I see this come up alot. People talk about casuals and hardcores. For some reason, people think that there are certain games that a casual gamer plays.

For example, if I work 40 hours a week, have a life outside of work and only play video games a couple hours a week, well then I guess that makes me a casual. So by that logic, I must buy games like Mario Party because according to everyone here, that's the kind of stuff that "casuals" play.

Apparently I can't buy Gears of War or a game like that because I don't play my xbox 24 hours a day so I'm not "hardcore". What does the amount of time a person plays have to do with the kind of game they like? If anything, someone who would buy these games people list as for "casuals", it would be children.

You think someone would spend 400 dollars on a console and only buy crappy games after they invested all that money?

Please enlighten me.

lagwagon113

No they would spend $250 and every game would be a mini game collection.

I define the terms casual and hardcore, not as the amount of time played, but what they are playing for.

The casual player plays to play. When they are playing the game, it's fun to them. The outcome is just the end of the game, it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

The hardcore drudges through playing and gets anal about winning. He looks to see what he can get from the game, other than the game itself.

I like having fun when I'm PLAYING games, not winning them. It's the DOING that should be fun for me, not what you get out of it.

Similar to that, RPGs are about PLAYING real-boring stuff. Then it's only when you win that you get cool stuff. You do boring stuff to get rewarded. But at the same time, you take a game like Street Fighter. Playing it is intense and such. Yea, someone might win at the end, but what happens before that is where the fun is.

At least in my definition "casual gamer" to me is the non-gamers that just recently stated playing games because it looks somewhat interesting. That goes for any generation even before Wii.

Anyone who is interested in games all the time and is willing to go out of his way to find information about the games etc, is not casual, they are gamers.

I think being on this forum alone is good enough proof that you are not casual gamer at least in my definition. You might not be hardcore gamer, but you are regular gamer who has legitmate interest in games.