Casual Gaming: legitimate threat or elitist paranoia? (no 56k)

Casual. You have no doubt heard that word alot if you have been on System Wars for any amount of time, and, as such, you probably know that many gamers feel as if casual games and the people that play them are a danger to gaming as whole.

Through this thread, I hope to inform the uninformed, guide the misguided, and discuss that which simply hasn't been discussed enough.

Casual Gaming: Legitimate threat or elitist paranoia?

Let's start by looking at what people think they mean when they use the word "casual". In many cases, the term is applied to software that is easy to use, simple to understand, and fun for the whole family (I refute the legitimacy of this phrase, in the tradition of Seinfeld).

Often times, the term casual is used as an attack on the Wii and its library, due to the nature of a great deal of the software on that system.

This form of discussion with regard to casual gaming is, usually, about as far as most people try and take the concept as a whole, and, that is, in my estimation, an extreme mis-treatment and twisting of a fairly legitimate argument, and serves only to undermine the fight against casualisation as a whole.

You see, whilst it may be true that the Wii certainly has a great deal of casual games (many of which are garbage) to sugest that the Wii is the problem is ignorance in its finest form.

The casual gaming problem extends to almost all major gaming genres, and is practically an issue on all plaforms.

Allow me to provide an example of the problem of casual gaming:

Morrowind was a excellent. RPG. Bethesda decided that they needed to reach a larger audience, so they noobified the bejeesus out of the Elder Scrolls formula, and...

Oblivion (a game that was at best a major dissapointment) was born.

This example is only one of many, and represents an enormous problem in gaming.

Devs, it seems, are being forced to choose between making games that hardcore, longtime fans of their respective series' will enjoy, or making games that will sell well to a larger audience, and thusly, net them the capital to create the next game, which, almost without exception, will be more causal than its predecessor.

The majority of gamers seem to want simplistic mechanics, non-complex skill trees, easy puzzles, and, most of all, a complete sense of direction in every single game they play.

It seems as though the days of games that don't hold the player's hand are rapidly approaching an end.

Today's primary gaming audience is too damn lazy to go find Caius Cosades; today's gaming audience would have no idea what to do with themselves after leaving Vault 13; today's gaming audience would never get past the first door that required a code in System Shock 2, simply because they cannot understand the concept of a door that isn't opened with a keycard or a automatically entered passcode.

Bethesda decided that today's gamer is too impatient to walk, so most of the traveling in Oblivion is done by clicking on a cave and then watching a loading screen.

2K Boston believed (correctly, I suspect ) that the average gamer these days is too thick headed to discover their own way around Rapture, so they included a ****ing enormous Crazy Taxi type arrow so that the modern gamer would not get lost in that extra room, due to their almost operantly conditioned levels of linear thinking.

Bioware decided that Mass Effect would be better off with shallow real time combat than a legitimate system worth of such a grand and engrossing universe and story. Something tells me this had more to do with appealing to a wider market than anything else.

To answer the OP, yes, casual gaming/"noobification", is a legitimate threat, that is by no means exclusively a Wii problem.

All of gaming is in trouble. Games like Fallout, System Shock 2, and yes, even Morrowind, are all in danger of becoming extinct.

And ladies and gentlemen, guess what? The problem isn't with the developers. They are just doing what they can to make money. The real problem lies with us, the gamers.

Where are the rallying cries of support for indie devs who are working on new RPGS inspired by games like Planescape: Torment?

Where is the hype for games like STALKER: Clear Sky (the prequel to an FPS/Hybrid that didn't sacrifice anything)?

Why do games like Oblivion get perfect and close to perfect scores from gaming sites and magazines?

Why isn't Fallout 3 an isometric turn based RPG with excellent HD graphics?

These questions all have a simple, if sad, answer: gaming has become a largely casual affair.

The "hardcore" games (particularly RPGS) that were once common place will soon come only from indie developers, and will be only be available on PC.

But who knows? If the online gaming community really voices their opinions on this matter, and supports games that don't sacrifice complexity for sales, then perhaps games like Fallout will be mainstream once more.

But until then, I suppose we'll just have to get used to hack and slash RPGS, crazy taxi arrows, and having our hands held.

Paranoia, we are the outsiders here, it's the casuals that determine almost everything that wins. We may not like that fact but the least we can do is be honest about it and fess up that they control the entire game industry while we argue about nonsense.

I think that the casual market is a very real threat to the hardcore market, but don't ever say Oblivion was a dissapointment.Mutatedbloodelf

I think that the casual market is a very real threat to the hardcore market, but don't ever say Oblivion was a dissapointment.Mutatedbloodelf

It was a dissapointment.

Bethesda noobified the bejeesus out of the game.

It's basically a castrated Morowind with prettier graphics and more realistic combat.

TL;DR

The second option.

If there was no such things as casual games I'm fairly positive that none of us would be here today. The first thing that interests a person who is later a gaming afficianado is none other than casual gaming. When you were a young child many of our interests didn't extend to blasting the heck out of a demon or bludgeoning soemoen to death in Manhunt. All fo us at one point began as casuals and it grew on us. As technology grows the more casuals will become hardcore and the more advanced the games will become.BumFluff122

But will the hardcore community grow, will the current hardcore retire from gaming, will new casuals take the old ones' places? These questions decide if there are more hardcore games.

In my book if you havent been gaming for at least 20 years your a casual!! Thats why i laugh at certain people when they say they are hardcore and never played on a Odysey or Coleco!! in other words, everyone can say what is casual and what is hardcore and thats my opinion..Gamersince81

My master system is from 87 and I've played since I was 2 (20 now) does that count?:P

In your examples of Oblivion and Bioshock I don't understand how riding a horse for 20 minutes just to get to a cave is enjoying or being lost in a maze of rooms until you find the right area to go would be fun for someone. The reason why these games have been simplified is because casuals just don't have the time and patience with a game for them to sit down and play. They need immediate satisfaction, or they won't play.

The simplifying of these games isn't a bad thing in most cases. It can make the game a lot more fun without so much hassle and doesn't make it feel overwhelming to an average person. On the other hand, games such as Empire Earth III and Sim City Societies ruin their franchises by oversimplifying.

The middle ground is always best. If they can make it easier and fun for the casuals but also still keep it entertaining for a real gamer then it turns out to be an excellent game for all. We need to remember that at first, everyone starts out as a casual and needs to be eased into the industry. If developers made crazy insanely hard games only then they would go broke.

In your examples of Oblivion and Bioshock I don't understand how riding a horse for 20 minutes just to get to a cave is enjoying or being lost in a maze of rooms until you find the right area to go would be fun for someone. The reason why these games have been simplified is because casuals just don't have the time and patience with a game for them to sit down and play. They need immediate satisfaction, or they won't play.

The simplifying of these games isn't a bad thing in most cases. It can make the game a lot more fun without so much hassle and doesn't make it feel overwhelming to an average person. On the other hand, games such as Empire Earth III and Sim City Societies ruin their franchises by oversimplifying.

The middle ground is always best. If they can make it easier and fun for the casuals but also still keep it entertaining for a real gamer then it turns out to be an excellent game for all. We need to remember that at first, everyone starts out as a casual and needs to be eased into the industry. If developers made crazy insanely hard games only then they would go broke.

MagicMan4597

There are times where the middle ground can't be reached, and times when it can. Noobifing the game will prevent the middle ground from being reached. But say having the option to remove the Crazy Taxi arrow in a game, there you have a compromise.

I think that the casual market is a very real threat to the hardcore market, but don't ever say Oblivion was a dissapointment.Mutatedbloodelf

Yes, please say Oblivion was a disappointment. Over and over again. As loud as you can. From the tops of the highest mountains.

The noobification of established "hardcore" franchises is killing gaming... yet last year was probably the best year for hardcore gamers in a long time.

Elitist paranoia, I say!

But will the hardcore community grow, will the current hardcore retire from gaming, will new casuals take the old ones' places? These questions decide if there are more hardcore games.CJL13

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If there was no such things as casual games I'm fairly positive that none of us would be here today. The first thing that interests a person who is later a gaming afficianado is none other than casual gaming. When you were a young child many of our interests didn't extend to blasting the heck out of a demon or bludgeoning soemoen to death in Manhunt. All fo us at one point began as casuals and it grew on us. As technology grows the more casuals will become hardcore and the more advanced the games will become.CJL13

But will the hardcore community grow, will the current hardcore retire from gaming, will new casuals take the old ones' places? These questions decide if there are more hardcore games.

The same question was asked in the Mega drive/SNES/NGAES/PC-Engine gen.

there was tons of casual games in that gen and don't even talk about Atari

Point is, there is always going to be hardcore games on the market as long as there is developers that care about this.

Another thing is, by the standards of 80s games every game out today is casual. If a genre goes through a change does not always mean it's a bad thing. Sure a lot of people hates on Oblivion because it simplifies a couple of things but you have to try new ways in games otherwise people would scream that the genre has gone stale and it's not changes enough but seriously would you like to back to games like Eye of the Beholder or Might and Magic 1?

Oblivion was a mistake I agree but it was not really the things it simplified that made it bad but the whole last gen but with better graphics. Would people really complain that the fighting is more simplified and easy to use if there had been more types of enemies to fight on the worldmap? The Level up system is hated on because you had to a lot of stuff you might not want to do but doesn't that make it more hardcore? The game pressures you to be good at a lot of things and sometimes change the way you played it yesterday. Why is this wrong in a hardcore gamer perspective?

The best example of casual noobification of a franchise I can think of: Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.

Holy bloody HELL. I nearly vomited when I played Rainbow Six: Lockdown, and R6 Vegas was a decent corridor shooter, but it might as well have been called something else.

i agree with the elitist paranoia part.

Im not sure if being a hardcore gamer is something to be proud of, or that being a casual gamer is something to be ashamed of.

you know we all started as casual gamers

You know, I'm not even disappointed that Oblivion introduced an auto travel feature. What disappointed me about Oblivion was that I could join every single faction and use every single skill until I was a superhuman wizard knight assassin thing. What also disappointed me about Oblivion was the leveling up feature. Enemies leveled up with you? C'mon, that's so stupid. And the missions weren't very well thought out, they were like some stuff you'd do in WoW. Collect 20 of this, or collect some of that. Those missions are fine if they are few and far between, but there was so many of them in Oblivion.

What I did like about Oblivion was the Dark Brotherhood quests and the Mage's quests weren't so bad. The Fighters guild ones weren't all that great. But it was kind of dumb that I could do everything in the game. With Morrowind, I played so many hours of that game and I STILL had not explored everything and finished every quest. It was just massive.

I still enjoyed the game, but I didn't put nearly as many hours into it as I put into Morrowind. I had to fix Oblivion with mods from the community that got rid of level scaling and the like.

The best example of casual noobification of a franchise I can think of: Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.

Holy bloody HELL. I nearly vomited when I played Rainbow Six: Lockdown, and R6 Vegas was a decent corridor shooter, but it might as well have been called something else.

mjarantilla

Actually I thought GRAW 2 was a huge improvement over GR2. Of course that could be because I have the ****ty PS2 version of GR2.

Bioshock was supposed to be so much more. Does anyone remember that statement by someone on this board that was quoted for ownage? It went something like "Meh, I'm not interested in Bioshock. Looks to be another shallow shooter." The irony is that, compared to system shock 2, it was in fact very shallow. Useless powers, a purely cosmetic-moral choice system, and the ability to carry every weapon at once made this into something that caters to casuals.

I still think it was an awesome game, but only as a pure shooter. I would not have minded more sophistication in it's gameplay and upgrade system.

Casual and Hardcore debate is a hot button issue with me.

I really don't think there is anything truly "hardcore" in any thing related to video gaming. At least from a consumer perspective.

For example, many a lemming thinks that Gears of Bore is a hardcore game. Yet the gameplay is extremely simple. What exactly is hardcore in the gameplay? The answer is, nothing. Gears of Bore is no more hardcore than a game of Solitair. In fact, Solitair may be more hardcore than Gears.

Now onto the Oblivion/Morrowind debate. For me personally, Oblivion was better than Morrowind in every single way. Sure you could "fast travel". But you don't have to. The combat was much better in Oblivion too. Every aspect of Oblivion was better. At least for me personally. Morrowind was tedious and the combat was boring. For all the Morrowind enthusiasts, I have a question(s): Was it enjoyable to be attacked by Cliff Racers every time you tried to go anywhere? They were annoyances. Also the brutally slow travel was horrible.

I will concede that Morrowind was little more fantastical than Oblivion, but Oblivion had much better action and access to the gameplay.

It is all opinion. For me Oblivion was one of the better games I've ever played.

Honestly, I think it's a healthy blend of both. Yes, some companies are ignoring their 'hardcore' fanbases in order to cash-in on the wants of the casual fanbase, but not to the extent that some of the 'hardcore' gamers are making it out to be.Verge_6

Exactly

I think the main problem is a lot of "hardcore gamers" are seeing their favorite game series beeing casualised but that's only natural when a series becomes popular and the company can smell the money.

They all forget that at the same time new hardcore titles are beeing born.

Sadly, most people, even here, will disagree. They will hail Oblivion as the greatest RPG ever, and argue to no end that the FPS take on Fallout (despite never playing the originals) is an improvement. Personally, I thought Oblivion was a terrible game, but I'm one of a few. Really though, who is right? It goes without saying that the industry has been changing, but to what end? You and I may be pessimistic about the future of game design, but others see it as an improvement. Thus, I come back to your original question, legitimate threat, or elitist paranoia? The answer, is of course relative, and as such, none among us can fairly answer the question.agentfred

Although Oblivion was a great game, it was just too casual. The potential was there, it was just taken away by the fact that it was a dumbed down MW. The sense that I was an "adventurer" in MW made the game feel so real. In OB it felt fake and forced, thats why it only lasted a couple of weeks for me.

Morrowind with next gen graphics, Oblivion combat and stealth systems, and an OB dialouge system would be the BEST GAME EVER!

With Oblivion, I believe the only way PC gamers would be able to enjoy the game is if they flood with mods and Shivering Isles. With Morrowind you could have a much better time playing it vanilla (no mods included) and it kills Oblivion with mods by itself.

Shivering Isles is best thing about Oblivion, but still falls short to Tribunal and Bloodmoon.

I, personally, do not decry casualization as much as my fellow long-time gamers. I have played Fallout 2, SS2, and many more, yet I still loved BioShock for what it was, and I am guessing that I will enjoy Fallout 3 as well. IMO, one of the greatest things about the old games is their depth, and, over the past few years, I have discovered something very important: good games are as deep as you want them to be. For example, in BioShock, I always stopped to aim for a headshot, always kept tabs of my inventory items, and always, always, ALWAYS tried to kill the Big Daddies in as cool a way as possible (including: wrench to the face, wrench to the flaming face, flames to the face, etc.), and also discovered some nice little plasmid tricks along the way.

I loved SS2, but I also find myself capable of loving modern games. Thus, I believe that much of the problem amongst hardcore gamers is, indeed, with elitism. I believe that the gaming community, as a whole, would be far better if my fellow hardcore gamers were able to appreciate modern games for what they are rather than decrying them for not being what games once were.

I agree with the dumbed down problem the tc bring, but I don't think the casual gamer are the real problem. The problem are the dev who want to reach them at all cost, but they seem to have failed so far. why? casual gamer don't play game like oblivion, for them rpg are for nerdz, they play halo, mario, zelda etc. Obivlion+SI sold 4 million on 3 systems, while morrowind+ bloodmoon+ tribunal sold 2 million for the pc. Don't tell me they managed to bring the casual gamer to play oblivion if they only sold 4 million on 3 system, while Halo and Mario are both around 6-8 million on one system.

Bioshock is another example, the game sold what? 1-1.5 million? The casual gamer did not buy the game, because Halo 3 was out and the hardcore fan of system shock2 did not buy the game, because it was dumbed down. System shock 2 sold 2 million.

Game like crysis and witcher are going to be better seller than both game ( and they are only for pc) because they attract one kind of gamer, instead of trying to please everyone.

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

I, personally, do not decry casualization as much as my fellow long-time gamers. I have played Fallout 2, SS2, and many more, yet I still loved BioShock for what it was, and I am guessing that I will enjoy Fallout 3 as well. IMO, one of the greatest things about the old games is their depth, and, over the past few years, I have discovered something very important: good games are as deep as you want them to be. For example, in BioShock, I always stopped to aim for a headshot, always kept tabs of my inventory items, and always, always, ALWAYS tried to kill the Big Daddies in as cool a way as possible (including: wrench to the face, wrench to the flaming face, flames to the face, etc.), and also discovered some nice little plasmid tricks along the way.

I loved SS2, but I also find myself capable of loving modern games. Thus, I believe that much of the problem amongst hardcore gamers is, indeed, with elitism. I believe that the gaming community, as a whole, would be far better if my fellow hardcore gamers were able to appreciate modern games for what they are rather than decrying them for not being what games once were.

thepwninator

wow, this man knows his stuff. I did the same thing with Bioshock. I MADE it deep. I carefully set up strategies with my plasmids, I did not rush into a group of enemies. I ALWAYS cared about dying and fought the Big Daddy's with a set strategy. Many of the elitists just try to get through the game and tr to beat it as fast as they can so that they can brag about it on an online gaming forum of no importance.

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

Ontain

then why don't you go back to it. be a developer of MUD's. don't whine about it on a forum, go DO it.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

Dopemonk736

then why don't you go back to it. be a developer of MUD's. don't whine about it on a forum, go DO it.

I think he was being sarcastic with the smiley in his post.

[QUOTE="Dopemonk736"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

DragonfireXZ95

then why don't you go back to it. be a developer of MUD's. don't whine about it on a forum, go DO it.

I think he was being sarcastic with the smiley in his post.

[QUOTE="Dopemonk736"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

DragonfireXZ95

then why don't you go back to it. be a developer of MUD's. don't whine about it on a forum, go DO it.

I think he was being sarcastic with the smiley in his post.

well maybe, but he does have a point, even if he was sarcastic

In no way was oblivion a disappointment. It has basically set the bar for upcoming wrpg's and yes I have played morrowind as well, they organized and refined alot of their previous ideas which made the game more immersive and less tedious. bri360

Except for the fact you could be in the grandmaster of every guild. It was a very good game, no lie. But the level scaling of the enemies and the fact that I mentioned above were kind of stupid.

But with mods, the game was exemplary.

I played muds that were only text and you had to make your own maps and write your own macros to do anything. lets go back to that because games today are so "casual" compared to that. :roll:

Ontain

I give credit where credit is due. There are many new games that I absolutely love.

If you think that I am some stuck up codger who hates on recent games simply because they are recent, then you are sorely mistaken.

I do not hate on games like Oblivion because they are new. I hate on games like Oblivion because they fail to deliver a compelling gameplay experience to match their pretty worlds, and cinematic stories.

It's all a matter of gameplay in my mind. Mass Effect accomplished alot as an RPG, and I really enjoyed it, but, simultaneously, I could not help but long for a combat system that actually had some depth to it.

I revere games like Fallout, not because they are old, but because they have deep gameplay to back up the immersive stories and worlds they are presenting.

In no way was oblivion a disappointment. It has basically set the bar for upcoming wrpg's and yes I have played morrowind as well, they organized and refined alot of their previous ideas which made the game more immersive and less tedious. bri360

[QUOTE="bri360"]In no way was oblivion a disappointment. It has basically set the bar for upcoming wrpg's and yes I have played morrowind as well, they organized and refined alot of their previous ideas which made the game more immersive and less tedious. kage_53

They improved the combat but ruined the RPG mechanics (primarily through scalable NPC lvling and loot).