[Opinion On] Oh God...I've become a casual gamer...Labels mean nothing!

KupotheAvenger

So I had a pretty strange epiphany last night as I wandered up to that hated hovel of gaming purchasing that is my local Gamespot. As I gave the different racks a once over I suddenly realized how far I've fallen from my once lofty heights as a "hardcore gamer". I could regale with stories of weekend long LAN sessions of destruction, weeks lost to RPGs and months lost to Counterstrike and its ilk. Speak at length upon the differences and subtle nuances in characters from VI to VII and debate which Cid is truly the greatest....

But gone are those days.

I walked up to the front counter and listened to a pair of kids going apeshit about what new games were coming out for the PS3 and Xbox 360, and how they would "pwn" their friends online with their "l33t" skills. I apologize in advance for using such coarse language, but I realized at that moment just how disconnected I am. My only next gen console is a Wii for pete's sake. And I'm totally fine with that...but does that mean I've crossed into the threshold of soccer moms and old people? Have I become a casual?


Which leads me to my question which I wanted to pose in the first place? Is it wrong to be a casual gamer? I feel like its the standard progression of what gamers become. I feel when we're younger, and time is on our side, gaming can be given a higher priority and we inevitably become hardcores. But as we grow older, don't we all become casual gamers?

This isn't to discount that there are hardcore gamers that have normal fufilling family lives, but I'm just wondering if this phenomena has happened to any of you too?

Lunker

Is it wrong to be a casual gamer?

Why would it ever be? The only thing that's wrong is letting Internet cred or bulletin board–dwelling trogs mandate what you consider enjoyable.

The thing to consider is that "casual" and "hard-core" and any other dozens of labels being tossed around are really meaningless. One's gamerness isn't really defined by how much time you spend with a game, how many different games you own or how good you are—it's really about what you like. So if you like Hexic on 360 enough to eventually get most or all of the Achievements, then I guess that's a casual game but goddamn are you hard-core.

EDIT: To elaborate, a person's tastes in games can naturally change over time, like tastes in music, food or film. I used to swallow RPGs whole as a young lad but nowadays unless it's portable I won't even bother with it, and even then 15-20 hours long is kind of my max in terms of retaining interest.

Renzo

Depends on the games you play, not how much you play them.

cloudeagle

Labels are silly. Play what you like.

citizen059

My mother in law could be considered a casual gamer because the only games she plays are on Pogo.com.

On the other hand, my mother in law could be considered a hardcore gamer because she spends the majority of her day playing games there. I'm talking like a good 6+ hours sometimes. I can't match the numbers she puts up.

Both labels fit, and both also don't fit. So I dunno.

THEPAIN73

Don't let labels determine who you are.

All I have is a Wii. I love the thing. I had a 360 for a while thought it was alright (traded it for a WoW computer).

Gamers are gamers. Through and through.

KupotheAvenger

Well I don't really view casual as a terrible thing. I should probably have phrased it a bit more tactfully than to use the standard hardcore vs. casual argument. As both of you have pointed out, its not quantity of time spent, its quality.

My tastes haven't really changed per se, more so that I'm finding less games to be as palatable as I had in the past. Its really hard for me to get excited about games nowadays. I mean, I love the MGS series, but the game doesn't grip me us as much as the first time I was going up the elevator and seeing Liquid near that Hind. Same with the new versions of final fantasy. The characters have lost their quirkiness that made some of their predacessors so lovable.

And these are established franchises that I loved when I was putting in some real time on my consoles. Its really quite distressing. This isn't to say that new franchises haven't snagged me. Monster Hunter, while not a new franchise, has eaten my time due to its portable nature and "one more monster" ideals. Rock Band, simply because I play in a band and love that I have a video game for it.

I guess it really is a matter of changing tastes and not a matter of time put in. Any other thoughts?

Lockout

Maybe it isn't time spent or types of games. It could be a combination of both, or something like how informed you are.

Like when I was little and my only console was a Playstation my uncle gave me, I'd just go to walmart and pick out a game that looked interesting without knowing anything else about it. As time passed and I got more into gaming, I started find out more about games coming out and what kind of games I liked etc. Looking forward to releases and all that good stuff. I bought an N64 and picked up Goldeneye and Super Smash Brothers. Good times

Nickle

My main method is to play games that are fun.

It's served me well so far.

Djiem

I wonder if amateur and professional athletes regard kids playing soccer/baseball/hockey on the street or in a park with derision the same way some stupid-ass gamers do online.

I thought entertainment (be it movies, books, games, sports) was meant to entertain. Sure, there are official rules to a sport like hockey because there is a professional competition scene for it, but when I played with my friends on the street there were no lines, no offense or defense or offsides. You just tried to get the puck into the net with a hockey stick.

I sometimes use the labels "gamer, non-gamer, casual, core" because it's been more or less accepted by the online gaming community to have a certain meaning, and it makes it easy for me to communicate an opinion or thought quickly, but I actually don't think the terms should exist and be debated. There's way too much separations and schadenfreude in the gamer culture. Casual Wii VS Hardcore Wii, 360 VS PS3 (even on these forums which I thought were above the Gamefaq/IGN's comment section level of stupidity, but just look at that locked MGS4 thread).

There are such debates with every other entertainment, but I've never seen anything as bad as videogames. Isn't the point of games to be fun? Fallout 3 looks awesome, I love Civilization IV, but when I'm going to go see my dad I'll bring Boom Blox and Intellivision Lives! (for Biplanes). He can't play Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess because they're "too hard" and "too complex".

Through my eyes of a "gamer", I know that often, the "casual" games suck ass because their development was a quick cash-in. But some games are simple as all hell (Wario Ware or Rhythm Tengoku anyone? Games last 5 seconds to a minute and usually consist of one input) but the mechanics and artwork are solid. Concept or design is what makes a game for you or not. Execution is what makes a game good or bad.

PeregrineFalcon

Djiem wrote: »

I wonder if amateur and professional athletes regard kids playing soccer/baseball/hockey on the street or in a park with derision the same way some stupid-ass gamers do online.

I thought entertainment (be it movies, books, games, sports) was meant to entertain. Sure, there are official rules to a sport like hockey because there is a professional competition scene for it, but when I played with my friends on the street there were no lines, no offense or defense or offsides. You just tried to get the puck into the net with a hockey stick.

Yeah, but to some people the "casual" games are a little too far from the tree. Imagine having a magical hockey stick that causes the ball to attach to the blade, and you don't have to stickhandle at all. Then you just look at your teammate and yell PASS and it flies over to his magical hockey stick, unless there's an opponent in the way who yells INTERCEPT and the ball clings to his instead. He approaches your net and yells SHOOT while your goalie yells BLOCK.

lolhyperbole, but that's the idea I'm getting here.

Or maybe Ball Hockey Extreme just isn't for me, and therefore I'm not allowed to criticise it.

Djiem

PeregrineFalcon wrote: »

Djiem wrote: »

I wonder if amateur and professional athletes regard kids playing soccer/baseball/hockey on the street or in a park with derision the same way some stupid-ass gamers do online.

I thought entertainment (be it movies, books, games, sports) was meant to entertain. Sure, there are official rules to a sport like hockey because there is a professional competition scene for it, but when I played with my friends on the street there were no lines, no offense or defense or offsides. You just tried to get the puck into the net with a hockey stick.

Yeah, but to some people the "casual" games are a little too far from the tree. Imagine having a magical hockey stick that causes the ball to attach to the blade, and you don't have to stickhandle at all. Then you just look at your teammate and yell PASS and it flies over to his magical hockey stick, unless there's an opponent in the way who yells INTERCEPT and the ball clings to his instead. He approaches your net and yells SHOOT while your goalie yells BLOCK.

lolhyperbole, but that's the idea I'm getting here.

Even then, would the athletes mock them?
Also, your hyperbole could be fun to some people if the execution is neat, which is my whole point. The way you describe it, it sounds lame, but anyone creating this game would have to make it fun to people who'd play it.

It'd be a frantic game of running in-between players of a same team, but not of hockey.

PeregrineFalcon

Djiem wrote: »

Even then, would the athletes mock them?
Also, your hyperbole could be fun to some people if the execution is neat, which is my whole point. The way you describe it, it sounds lame, but anyone creating this game would have to make it fun to people who'd play it.

It'd be a frantic game of running in-between players of a same team, but not of hockey.

If they called it "Hockey" then yes, I imagine they'd be mocked, because as you said, it's clearly no longer hockey.

Djiem

PeregrineFalcon wrote: »

Djiem wrote: »

Even then, would the athletes mock them?
Also, your hyperbole could be fun to some people if the execution is neat, which is my whole point. The way you describe it, it sounds lame, but anyone creating this game would have to make it fun to people who'd play it.

It'd be a frantic game of running in-between players of a same team, but not of hockey.

If they called it "Hockey" then yes, I imagine they'd be mocked, because as you said, it's clearly no longer hockey.

I doubt they'd call it hockey without a modifier, like "yell hockey" or "shout hockey". And then people would play real hockey, street hockey or yell hockey and let the others live their life. Of course, those who'd play yell hockey and say they're playing real hockey would be mocked as real hockey is the one played on an ice rink with the official rules.

I just don't believe the hockey players would go out and mock people who enjoy yell hockey. And who says you can't enjoy both?

Also, I believe that casual games are still games. The ones that aren't games are stuff like that Kanji dictionnary I got for the DS. It's an application. Wii Fit, a casual game, still has a goal: Keep that damn dot in the center of that white circle, fatso. It has gameplay: You need to step on and off the board, or lift one foot in the air, or extend your legs at a certain time. The dictionnary is, well, a dictionnary.

KupotheAvenger

The whole idea of execution actually is a very good point. The games that really seem to bring me in nowadays are really the ones that are creative in their execution. Shadow of the Collossus for instance is a great concept. I mean if you take the stick ball concept and apply it here, its a game made entirely of boss fights. No levels or minions to kill, just boss fights. In premise it sounds like a shovelware wiiware side title, but in execution its by far one of the most fufilling and beautiful titles I've ever played.