Are Casuals Killing Gaming?@ Gameplayer.com.au

Australian gaming site Gameplayer.com takes a look at the impact of the success of casual games on the hardcore player in this article:

We’ve all played the odd game of Snake on a mobile phone, popped a few crystals in Bejeweled, or made ourselves look extremely silly playing games like Cooking Mama in front of the family, but the rise of casual gaming is becoming a concern to a small but significant sector of the gaming community: the hardcore...
...hardly a day goes by when the games press does not mention some core developer that announces it is working on a new casual game.” So, are self-professed hardcore gamers right to be concerned about the influence that casual gaming is having on their hobby?

Jim Sterling, who writes a blog at Destructoid, summarises the paranoia that hardcore gamers have of the ‘casuals’ thus: “It’s just a shame that most of what they’re playing can barely qualify as videogames.”

Historically there have certainly been many examples of once great, feature-laden games getting diluted to appeal to a wider audience, especially from PC to console: Baldur’s Gate to Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance; the Total War series to Spartan: Total Warrior; Civilization to Civilization Revolution; the list could go on. But what’s notable now is that, with the PC market shrinking, publishers are increasingly stripping features from games to appeal to the masses from the outset.

Click to expand...

The author then gets into some definitions and whether accessability alone makes a game casual:

But it’s here where the lines between what is and isn’t a casual game become blurred...Is a casual game defined by how simple and accessible it is? Or is a casual gamer someone who plays for a few minutes at a time? Perhaps a casual gamer is someone who only plays ‘social’ games?

All of these definitions are problematic...The broader question is not whether hardcore gamers enjoy casual titles – they clearly do – but if casual gamers can be brought into the fold without damaging the existing hardcore experience. Indeed, developers are now turning the question on its head, arguing that the rise of casual games is actually benefiting game design across the board.

Click to expand...

And on some of the defects of traditional hardcore games:

Jonathan Smith, creative director at Traveller’s Tales, believes this: “True challenge comes when a player is provoked into learning something new. Some games, though, fit so closely within generic expectations, following so predictable a progression tempo, that players...can move through them half-asleep.

There’s a conventional ‘balanced’ path in many games, as an endless tutorial, which drip-feeds the player with novel opportunities at a more-or-less steady rate over a long period of time, and that loses the sense of unpredictability, danger, and self-motivated reward that provides the most memorable gaming experiences.”
This is an interesting twist because so many so-called hardcore games fail to offer anything truly new after the first level.

Click to expand...

More information.

Wow. This sort of argument never dies.

A true story...

About 28 years ago when I was in college I was at a games convention in Minneapolis. I was sitting at a table playing a (pen'n'paper) role playing game (D&D? Maybe TFT?) with some people and a guy walked up and watched us for a while. He was obviously getting more and more upset about something and finally broke into a red-faced arm-waving rant about how silly RPGs were killing the REAL gaming hobby of hard core wargames and miniatures and how we were all stupid and on and on. Eventually he wandered off still ranting.

Fast forward about 14 years and I was at GenCon in Milwaukee. I was sitting at a table playing Magic: the Gathering with some people and a guy walked up and watched us for a while. He was obviously getting more and more upset about something and finally broke into a red-faced arm-waving rant about how silly card games were killing the REAL gaming hobby of hard core role playing games and how we were all stupid and on and on. Eventually he wandered off still ranting.

I dunno. Maybe some guy is going to "catch" me playing Wii bowling with my son and start ranting now. From the timing of the two previous episodes I'm about due.

Oddly I still play "hardcore" wargames (though not very often) and RPGs (quite a bit) but I haven't played MtG in many years.

There always will be hardcore games and casual games and if the hardcore games can't compete in the mass market, well, so be it. Darwinism rules.

I find such rants hard to take seriously. There is a grain of truth to the whining about dumbing down (mainly due to an ever broadened audience and computer gaming becoming more of a mature entertainment industry), but the Luddite component is also pretty darn strong. Even if the only change would be a modernisation and improvement of user interfaces and presentation many orthodox "hard core" gamers would whine about that.

I agree. More gamers = good. Some of the casual crowd will eventually become hardcore, and will want something deeper or more involving than Wii Sports. There will be studios catering to that market.

Awesome story, BillSeurer. I grinned.

As long as we get new, fun tech and gizmos to adequately replace a whole generation of gaming dogmas, I'm fine with that. 14 years seems like a good time frame.

BTW, the story IS really true. The second time it happened I told what had happened previously to the other people I was playing with and everyone broke out laughing uproariously which probably made rant-guy even more POed.

BillSeurer said:

BTW, the story IS really true. The second time it happened I told what had happened previously to the other people I was playing with and everyone broke out laughing uproariously which probably made rant-guy even more POed.

Click to expand...

Nothing makes more of a fool of a person than righteous indignation wrongly applied.

I'm in agreement with the idea that more people gaming improves the industry, myself, regardless of what people play. If there is a market, those working to feed it will be encouraged to try whatever it takes to get an audience, and that leads to experimentation and innovation as well as 'dumbing down' and 'generification.'*

Without casual gamers, would we have gotten Puzzle Quest? And the drive to reach more people/a broader audience is surely a factor in all the new hybridizations of genres we see, without which there would perhaps not have been an outstanding game like King's Bounty.



*borrowed your word, Mike--it's a good one.

I also enjoyed BillSeurer's anecdote and thought it did a good job of putting things into perspective (Be sure to look over your shoulder the next time you saddle up to a Wii, Bill).

The point about Darwinism and hardcore games needing to compete with casual ones is familiar, and apparently accurate, but it's one that's always struck me as odd. Do all restaurants compete directly with McDonalds? All recording artists directly with Myley Cyrus? If that's how things work, men should all smell like musk by now, shouldn't they?

IMO, computer gaming is still in its infancy in terms of business (which is not such a bad thing, really). Developers seem to still be winging it. When I think of it, I imagine artists on the verge of being currupted by greedy bankers.

But those penny-pinching bankers are good at spotting opportinities to make money. Their geek market analysis and product plans help companies reach untapped markets. So maybe there's hope for hardcore fans in the future.

When one enjoys the current state then change can be difficult to accept. That's the nature of human beings (and probably other animals, too).

I'm a hardcore RPG fan who didn't enjoy anything but RPGs but in the past several years I've had to change with the times because there wasn't that much choice as hardcore RPGs seem to be fewer and farther between. 3 years ago if anyone told me that I would enjoy space games like Dark Star One, driving game Project Gotham 2, shooting/driving games like Grand Theft Auto and The Godfather, and first-person shooter games like Bioshock and Deux Ex and System Shock 2 I would have said there's no way.

However, none of these games are at all what I would consider casual. If the industry stops making or reduces the frequency of making games which require thought then I think I'd be in big trouble. If someone tells me now that I would enjoy bejewelled or cooking mama a whole lot I say no way (but I could be wrong again).

Time certainly moves on, and many of us here are the spiritual successor to the wargame grognard. The real difference in the situations lies in production cost. The old tabletop hex-grid wargame has passed into the realm of "ultra-niche", but a single person with $20 worth of graphpaper and a neat idea can create new innovations for that "ultra-niche" market. As hardcore gaming gets nudged into "ultra-niche" by the inevitable march of progress, it will become impossible to properly service and innovate for that market.

1 guy (rather a very small group) can still produce a game catering to hardcore (Eschalon comes to mind quickly) but the financial limitations force compromises. So, Eschalon has throw-back graphics. Or, Eschalon merely resurrects the ghosts of old-skool RPG, rather than any real innovation. And don't get me wrong, I loves me some Eschalon and will be right at the front of the line for Book 2, but that doesn't change the reality of their limitations.

So, while Bill Seurer is correct that the sky isn't falling, I feel safe in saying that the aftermath of this storm will be a bit uglier than previous editions.

As long as there are some hardcore games I think casuals won't harm.
The only obvious casual RPG I can think of is Fable .Witcher and NWN being considered hardcore.
In the end I think it will end up like in music,some bands/songs will be "pop" and well known to everyone and some will continue being non-pop.Casuals will love casual and ignore everything else and hardcore will stick to their tastes.

The playerbase can't be directly responsible for the choices of developers or publishers.

The only thing that's "killing" gaming is greed.

Now, when I say killing, what I'm really saying is that gaming is changing. The industry is a major business today, and the audience is VERY different overall. Developers are adapting their designs to fit their perception of what the audience wants.

It's human nature to be greedy, and I can't blame anyone for wanting more profit, more popularity, more power, or whatever other fundamentals that attract human beings.

But this is all circular, and as the major players move towards the bigger market - we'll experience a larger space that can be occupied by smaller indie developers that care more about the art than the profit. Beyond that, the larger - casual - audience will crave evolution eventually - it's just going to be at a MUCH slower pace, because we're not dealing with enthusiasts.

So, no, I don't see gaming dying - and I don't see evolution dying. We're just witnessing two-steps-forward-three-steps-back, and we will for a while. But as surely as greed is part of human nature, we'll see it practiced in terms of wanting deeper and more complex designs. Give it time.

Squeek said:

The point about Darwinism and hardcore games needing to compete with casual ones is familiar, and apparently accurate, but it's one that's always struck me as odd. Do all restaurants compete directly with McDonalds? ...

Click to expand...

I feel like the Old Story Dude. "Back in MY day..."

Back in MY day when I was a kid in the 60s every summer I used to travel with my parents from our home to where they were from . It was a 6 hour trip and went through several small and numerous tiny towns. We always carefully planned the trip to avoid needing to stop to eat except for one breakfast spot in one town along the way (but ONLY breakfast there). Why? The food places along the way were uniformly horrible. The big chains were just getting started then and there wasn't single one in any town along the way.

Now when I make the trip there are several chain places in nearly every town and all of the horrible places are long dead. The chains aren't great places to eat but at least I know what I will be getting. Interestingly there are also a few GOOD local places to eat now, too.

So, yes, almost every restaurant does compete with McDs. McDs and such ilk will kill off all the bad, local places (and frankly GOOD RIDDANCE) or force them to become something better.

And I think it is the same with games.

Fast-food restaurants, especially McDonalds, certainly changed the whole competitive landscape, but that's not to say they competed directly with every other restaurant. Not to be nitpicky, but that's my sole point.

The view of that competitive landscape is, of course, a matter of opinion, and in mine unsatisfied customers speaking out asking for more is evidence of wasted market potential.

If game makers today are too busy making money to be bothered with those particular customers, I don't blame them at all. But that doesn't affect the market, does it? Those customers are still begging for more.

My point is that there's hope for the hardcore gamer as long as there's potential for businesses to target them specifically as customers (kinda like restaurants who target customers who prefer to eat somewhere other than McDonalds).

To me, it's like visiting museums (which I prefer) compared to ... well, what, anyway ?

To me, there's nothing as intellectually stimulation me than a museum about my favourite hobby: Archaeology. And arts rather in general, though I don't like modern arts and church-related art too much.

And I want something that appeals to my "grey matter". I can have food at the nearest fast-food shop, restaurant, anywhere. But something to cater my brain - different. More rare.

I know that I'm different than most people, and I also realize that I'm presenting a special kind of niche most companies wouldn't want to cater because the profits there are too small. The overall group is too small.

But yet I'm there - but the "market" doesn't see me. I'm too small for it.

I feel like a "living fossil".

I think that for far too long that game makers are focusing on the casual only demographic because they are simply much bigger. And because of it the hardcore crowd seems to be shrinking. I see the same issue with the wii.

There needs to be "gateway" games that allows people to go from a simple game to a more complicated game. Casual gamers are looking for more depth in their games but what is offered is TOO DEEP for them.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I know that I'm different than most people, and I also realize that I'm presenting a special kind of niche most companies wouldn't want to cater because the profits there are too small. The overall group is too small.
But yet I'm there - but the "market" doesn't see me. I'm too small for it.
I feel like a "living fossil".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of folks out there who appreciate the hard-core gamer and see the monetary potential of developing a low-budget game with high-budget returns. Just compare it to the success of an indie movie.

When a big-budget movie (USD100+ million) manages to barely hits its budget targets, it is often just managing to keep the company in business (and it can put even large companies at tremendous financial risk). The rewards for a big-budget movie, on a strictly percentage basis, are small (5%... 10%). Compare that to all the big-budget movies that tank or fail to break even and studios are often 2 or 3 high-dollar movies away from financial ruin.

However, the risk vs. reward ratio for an indie movie is much, MUCH better. An investor could put out a couple million dollars for an indie movie and, with a good director, a good script, and some decent no-name actors, make that back pretty easily on a limited theater run and DVD sales.

The same goes for indie games. In fact, I'd argue the risk vs. reward ratio is even MORE satisfactory with indie games as the only real monetary input, besides a decent PC and some software, is the sheer time that's required to make it happen. A person either needs to quit their day-job entirely and sacrifice a steady paycheck (i.e., living expenses) for a few years and/or agree to work 120 hour weeks until the project is finished...

However, if you succeed, and manage to get a small, niche-type product that manages to garner a modest 50,000 downloads and that you only charge them 30.00 with a PDF manual, you're talking 1.5 million. Now, some of that goes to the site you use to host the game and the few people who you needed to help with music tracks, manual production, and website marketing, etc.. But even so, you're still talking a fairly sizable return on your investment with very little (relatively speaking) financial risk.

And with the global economy in such sorry shape, I think we're going to see more and more of this going forward... smaller games, lower risk, and (hopefully) more substantial returns. And "small" can very often mean "hard-core" which is a good thing for us cRPG grognards.

And btw, I think the story of "Braid" is comparable to what we're discussing:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94025221

I haven't played the game, as I don't have an XBOX 360, but I've heard it is a "high concept" type of game that has garnered a substantial following. I can see the potential for something like this happening with a REALLY well-done RPG.

Cabel Blacke said:

The same goes for indie games. In fact, I'd argue the risk vs. reward ratio is even MORE satisfactory with indie games as the only real monetary input, besides a decent PC and some software, is the sheer time that's required to make it happen. A person either needs to quit their day-job entirely and sacrifice a steady paycheck (i.e., living expenses) for a few years and/or agree to work 120 hour weeks until the project is finished...

Click to expand...

True, but you're assuming that hardcore gamers will accept the limitations of the indies--inferior graphics (relative to AAA titles), smaller scope (1 guy simply can't code a massive RPG world), and so forth. Unfortunately, the target audience, hardcore, is more tech-savvy and generally has better gear, which in turn will raise expectations.