I don't disagree with your post with the bullet points. I'm disagreeing with you saying the hypothetical guy is right when he says the only reason we don't like a certain aspect of new games is because we're getting older.
no, it's because as time goes things change, the status quo changes and you things that you liked that were status quo are no longer very, um "quo".
look at rap.
When I was younger rap was a niche music, poetry of the streets, that sort of thing,. Time goes on and suddenly many people are listening to it. More time goes on and you find it in burger king commercials. More time goes on and we start seeing less and less of it around, less use of it in "popular media".
Same with mmo's. Time goes on, things change, the genre gets popular, wow becomes big with non-gamers, eventually things will change and more niche games will show up because the popularity of WoW and other attempts at "mainstreaming it" will fall and you will get a new type of status quo for games.
It's just an ebb and flow and as I've said it's been happening long before we were born.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here? I'm not denying that there are cultural forces that shift the status quo of every industry. What I'm saying is when we talk about the difference between our favorite old games and new games, there's more than just "nostalgia." There are actual differences between then and now and we prefer the "then."
You're right to say that there are other things (like perception) IN ADDITION to these actual changes, but the actual changes exist.
I played EQ and DAoC for many years. Bought DAoC 3 days after it was released even.
I loved those games but I am glad the genre evolved some. I do not miss spawn camping hours and hours, waiting in line for rare mobs, exp. grinding for hours on end. Half the time spent socializing was due to there being nothing else better to do while you waited 8 hours for your turn at the rare.
Those type of games were great for the time, but it isnt that time now. Me and all my DAoC buddies couldnt put in the sheer amount of time and effort to play something like that today. Hell I need a more casual MMO to play just due to real life adult responsibilities. Gone are the days of having to spend 40 hours a week to barely keep up in an MMO.
I have many great memories from those games as I am sure many do. There are games like that still running if you want to play them. Simply put most people have neither the time nor desire to commit that much time & effort into a video game. Casual MMOs draw a bigger crowd, just the way it is.
I do miss the community of DAoC, the realm pride, defending the relics, knowing your enemies from other realms, being in a guild that actually felt like a family rather than the guys you raid with every M / W / F. For me that was the best time I have ever had in a game period. It was as much a time in my life as it was the game. Everyone I knew that played hardcore has gown up and have families, full time jobs, ect.
Only a small niche could or would actually put the time required by a game like EQ1 or DAoC on release. Why make a game for 100k when you could make one Millions play and enjoy? Not for love I can tell you that. At the end of the day game making is a business.
Is running all over clicking NPC's with yellow markers better?I would say doing quests,90% of the time is just running to and from,which is the equivalent of doing nothing.
Only whilst running you are not even socializing.What i see now ,players are so bored they hang out in chat and talk Chuck Norris jokes,or start arguing with other players about how great Wow is and crap the game is they are sitting in.Then 10 chat tells tell that person to go back to Wow then a big argument erupts.
I remember one of the early quests i had in Wow,i had to run a Stein to another Npc,then i got XP for doing it.I can tel;l you i sure felt like i deserved that XP and thanks to that fed ex quest my Warrior was that much more experienced.Geesh from there hence forward, my Warrior truly did feel stronger,must have been the quad muscle building from that run and/or that Stein must have weighed a ton.
So, you agree that the horrid time wasting grind of the older games is essentially the same as the faster paced quest grinding of modern games? Then why even argue about the supposed superiority of the first attempts at MMO gameplay vs the present iterations?
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I don't disagree with your post with the bullet points. I'm disagreeing with you saying the hypothetical guy is right when he says the only reason we don't like a certain aspect of new games is because we're getting older.
no, it's because as time goes things change, the status quo changes and you things that you liked that were status quo are no longer very, um "quo".
look at rap.
When I was younger rap was a niche music, poetry of the streets, that sort of thing,. Time goes on and suddenly many people are listening to it. More time goes on and you find it in burger king commercials. More time goes on and we start seeing less and less of it around, less use of it in "popular media".
Same with mmo's. Time goes on, things change, the genre gets popular, wow becomes big with non-gamers, eventually things will change and more niche games will show up because the popularity of WoW and other attempts at "mainstreaming it" will fall and you will get a new type of status quo for games.
It's just an ebb and flow and as I've said it's been happening long before we were born.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here? I'm not denying that there are cultural forces that shift the status quo of every industry. What I'm saying is when we talk about the difference between our favorite old games and new games, there's more than just "nostalgia." There are actual differences between then and now and we prefer the "then."
You're right to say that there are other things (like perception) IN ADDITION to these actual changes, but the actual changes exist.
I'm clarifying my last statement as you had originally picked up on the the "getting older" part.
I'm saying that "yes" there are changes but most people don't realize that these changes have not only been going on since "since" but will continue in our lives.
I think most gamers have a very laser focused sense of the game industry and have no sense of perspective since the industry is so young. At some point people are going to realize that the game industry will eventually swing back to older style games, at least at the very heart. It's just a matter of time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I’m glad you said that, yes relaxed has nothing to do with time. Irregular has everything to do with time. A person with irregular play sessions does not have regular play sessions. It’s ridiculous that I had to say that sentence to you. A casual game does not require regular play seessions. Sessions can be done in short times, the player can play irregularly.
It is about the length of play session. I can’t believe your still trying to argue this. Difficulty is not the factor. They are games, they are played in downtime, hard or easy. Difficulty in a game has ZERO to do with relaxation.
The definition you used, your definition of relaxation and irregular play supports short play sessions.
Just because something can cause stress doesn't mean it will cause stress. Stress can be good, there is even a term for it, eustress.
I"m saying a person can be relaxed while playing a hard game, or an easy game. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of play. I'm saying a person can play a hard game or easy game regularly or irregularly. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game.
Casual games are concerned with time. Thats it. Nothing more. You are reading somethign into it that doesn't exist.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Venge, you must take into account that Holophonist is a high level SC2 player (if I remember correctly) and he thinks difficulty plays a role in casual friendliness. That is why he gets defensive when we say "SC2 is more casual than LoL". His ego is on the line for him.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Venge, you must take into account that Holophonist is a high level SC2 player (if I remember correctly) and he thinks difficulty plays a role in casual friendliness. That is why he gets defensive when we say "SC2 is more casual than LoL". His ego is on the line for him.
Why are you posting this instead of responding to either of the two posts of mine you have to respond to?
Oh, that's right. Because you have nothing to say to them. That's not going to stop you from chiming in on the discussion AFTER you've already been summarily escorted out of it though, apparently.
I’m glad you said that, yes relaxed has nothing to do with time. Irregular has everything to do with time. A person with irregular play sessions does not have regular play sessions. It’s ridiculous that I had to say that sentence to you. A casual game does not require regular play seessions. Sessions can be done in short times, the player can play irregularly.
You didn't have to say that sentence to me. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. You don't get to be snarky if you're not right.
Irregularity doesn't have to do with the length of play sessions, yet your whole point is that length of play sessions is everything. So HOW ON EARTH can you cite the "irregularity" definition as support for your claim? How? You're saying shorter sessions are everything. Irregularity doesn't have anything to do with the length of play sessions. Why is this discussion still going on?
It is about the length of play session. I can’t believe your still trying to argue this. Difficulty is not the factor. They are games, they are played in downtime, hard or easy. Difficulty in a game has ZERO to do with relaxation.
In what way does irregularity have anything to do with length of play sessions?
The definition you used, your definition of relaxation and irregular play supports short play sessions.
They don't. Relaxation doesn't imply short play session. You've never shown this connection. Same with irregularity.
AGAIN, YOU CAN HAVE A RELAXING AND LONG PLAY SESSION. YOU CAN ALSO HAVE A STRESSFUL BUT SHORT PLAY SESSION.
Just because something can cause stress doesn't mean it will cause stress. Stress can be good, there is even a term for it, eustress.
I"m saying a person can be relaxed while playing a hard game, or an easy game. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of play. I'm saying a person can play a hard game or easy game regularly or irregularly. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game.
Casual games are concerned with time. Thats it. Nothing more. You are reading somethign into it that doesn't exist.
No what it means is casual is different for different people, not that casual has nothing to do with difficulty. Difficulty, play sessions, aesthetics, etc ALL FACTOR INTO making something more or less relaxaing, more or less CASUAL.
If you would continue with your thought process here you'd find that you could say that shorter play sessions could be more relaxing for some, and longer ones for others. So when you say a casual player would pick the game with the shorter play session, this is just so obviously wrong given the line of thinking you just put forward. Buuuuuut you'll somehow wriggle out of this to save face. That or you'll just stop responding. People on the internet seem to be utterly incapable of admitting they're wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as this.
Originally posted by Cephus404 No, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the MMO genre was originally intended to be, it only matters what it is now. [mod edit] It's entirely irrelevant to the modern day MMO which are driven by market forces and what the majority of people actually want to play now.
Not so sure about that. Modern marketing is adept at "creating demand" for what they want people to buy. I think what is happening instead is that the mechanics of games are created to ensure maximum profit for minimal outlay. This is very logical economically. It is what has made McDonalds and Wal-Mart giants. It also has downsides, as we are now seeing...
But McDonalds and Walmart do adjust to the market, there are just small groups of vocal people who do not represent the market who like to bitch and whine about them because they're not doing what these small groups want. That's exactly what we're seeing in the MMO market. Small groups of old-school players who want games that are not wanted by the majority of the MMO players in the market. There's nothing wrong with what McDonalds and Walmart are doing, the majority of people shop there and they are very profitable. There are just a few self-important people who want everyone to think otherwise and who confuse the volume of their message with the popularity of their message..
Originally posted by Cephus404 No, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the MMO genre was originally intended to be, it only matters what it is now. [mod edit] It's entirely irrelevant to the modern day MMO which are driven by market forces and what the majority of people actually want to play now.
Not so sure about that. Modern marketing is adept at "creating demand" for what they want people to buy. I think what is happening instead is that the mechanics of games are created to ensure maximum profit for minimal outlay. This is very logical economically. It is what has made McDonalds and Wal-Mart giants. It also has downsides, as we are now seeing...
But McDonalds and Walmart do adjust to the market, there are just small groups of vocal people who do not represent the market who like to bitch and whine about them because they're not doing what these small groups want. That's exactly what we're seeing in the MMO market. Small groups of old-school players who want games that are not wanted by the majority of the MMO players in the market. There's nothing wrong with what McDonalds and Walmart are doing, the majority of people shop there and they are very profitable. There are just a few self-important people who want everyone to think otherwise and who confuse the volume of their message with the popularity of their message..
The fact that there are a lot of "different" games coming out now says that a lot of us were/are right when we say that there isn't enough innovation in the scene and that there are underserved markets. There are a lot of sandbox games on the horizon for a reason.
Shorter play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. Longer play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. The relaxing is not what defines a casual game.
Historically casual games have been defined as short play sessions, not about how relaxing it is, not about how difficult it is, only about time.
Casual was always just about time. I know this hurts your feelings, but you don't get to change how it has been used just because you don't like it.
A casual game is one that lets someone make meaningful progress in short periods. Thats it nothing more.
I'm sure you will reply that I'm wrong. But as we are now just circling each other with no forward progress I will end this debate now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal An example of depth abandoned by MMORPGs. I mean look at factions in EQ. EQ factions made some difference, as did racial choices, religion and class to how NPCs treated you. Every race had a starting area and there was no all in together now alliances. Look at WoW factions. You pretty much have hard coded factions outside of the grind for a few ponies and quest.
Could you imagine your paladin npcs turning around and beating the crap out of allied warlocks in WoW? Even many NPCs shunning them for demonic summoning and not selling to them? Life as a troll shadowknight in EQ was a life being hated and even shunned by your dark elf buddies to a degree. He my dark elf wizard was killed by his own guild for testing what an AoE spell did in the hall.
Those were not abandoned by MMOs they were abandoned by players. The majority of players didn't care about those things so the MMOs stopped putting them into the games. You've got to realize that features are dictated by player demand, nor your personal wish list. If you don't fall into the majority, you lose.
Originally posted by Cephus404 No, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the MMO genre was originally intended to be, it only matters what it is now. [mod edit] It's entirely irrelevant to the modern day MMO which are driven by market forces and what the majority of people actually want to play now.
Not so sure about that. Modern marketing is adept at "creating demand" for what they want people to buy. I think what is happening instead is that the mechanics of games are created to ensure maximum profit for minimal outlay. This is very logical economically. It is what has made McDonalds and Wal-Mart giants. It also has downsides, as we are now seeing...
But McDonalds and Walmart do adjust to the market, there are just small groups of vocal people who do not represent the market who like to bitch and whine about them because they're not doing what these small groups want. That's exactly what we're seeing in the MMO market. Small groups of old-school players who want games that are not wanted by the majority of the MMO players in the market. There's nothing wrong with what McDonalds and Walmart are doing, the majority of people shop there and they are very profitable. There are just a few self-important people who want everyone to think otherwise and who confuse the volume of their message with the popularity of their message..
The fact that there are a lot of "different" games coming out now says that a lot of us were/are right when we say that there isn't enough innovation in the scene and that there are underserved markets. There are a lot of sandbox games on the horizon for a reason.
There are lots of games announced, we'll see how any of them actually turn out. So far it's just hype but I think it's likely, based on past experience, that these sandbox games will come out and the old-school people will scream they're not done right, that they all suck and then start claiming that the perfect game is just over the horizon. It's happened before, I have no doubt it will happen again.
Let me know when there are actual games that are on the open market that are financially successful and lauded as the "perfect game" by old-school players. I think I'll have a long wait.
It seems what really matters at the end of the day is what next MMO will change the direction of the industry. I'm curious to see if all the "Sandbox" MMOs coming out in the next 3 years will change the industry for the better or if soon to be released MMOs like WildStar will continue the Themepark's powergrip on the genre.
As a Developer however, I still can never agree that a lobby based game of any sort can ever be considered an MMO (aka: Diablo III) .
-Bear
on the question at the first here and the point made at the last, we can both wholeheartedly agree.
1. i do wonder what the impact of the indie and big company sandboxes will be over the next 5 years or so. although, we might know as early as two years in to this phase.
2. i don't think lobby games are mmo's. its not a value judgment, just taking issue with definitions here.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbones If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.
He's saying mob grinds are typically in one spot for a long period of time. There is also often downtime in between spawns so it leads to conversations and socializing.
Thanks Holo, you nailed it. And I see you are soloing several posters; nicely done.
Originally posted by Sevala (great post about how MMOs suck and haven't grown).
I completely agree with your excellent post, btw WTH have you been? 19 posts in five years!
Originally posted by Xthos (MMOs) are basically getting further and further away from a traditional mmo and becoming more fps and on the way to becoming mmoangrybirds. ...It is taking steak and making it a hamburger...It has a fun bun that makes it easy to hold, and it is cheaper! Who the hell wants a steak that you need a knife and fork to cut
+1; p.s. I'm hungry now thanks
Originally posted by Gardavsshade ...the MMOs that were Steaks are now just burgers, ... easy and simple, but no where as satisfying. I tried the Burgers, so many Players said we should like them, but I do not. ...Great Steak Houses have disappeared and all we got is "Slimy Grinders R Us". Yuck.
+1
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa ...A mob grind is an honest grind. You get people together, see how deep you can push, how many you can take, dancing the line of risk vs reward, rate of xp vs chance of death.
Excellent summation (and post)!
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Shorter play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. Longer play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. The relaxing is not what defines a casual game.
Right, man. got it. It's not the relaxation. It's the irregularity... and you still haven't explained why irregularity means shorter play periods.
Historically casual games have been defined as short play sessions, not about how relaxing it is, not about how difficult it is, only about time.
"I'm right because I'm right"
Casual was always just about time. I know this hurts your feelings, but you don't get to change how it has been used just because you don't like it.
I'm not changing anything. I'm using the definitions of the words. You're not. Is it not possible that you THOUGHT it meant one thing and so every time you read something about "casual gamers" or "casual games" or "casual friendly games" that's how you interpreted it? but now that you've learned the actual definitions of the words you should probably just admit you're wrong.
A casual game is one that lets someone make meaningful progress in short periods. Thats it nothing more.
I'm sure you will reply that I'm wrong. But as we are now just circling each other with no forward progress I will end this debate now.
I'll reply that you're wrong... because you're wrong. You haven't used any definition of any of the words to show that you're right. You just keep saying "this is how it is." Well.... not according to the english language.
bla bla bla bla bla you all are acting petty and you all are looking for a fight bla bla bla quit crying and there are good games coming out in are future if we dont destroy each other first
casual game revolution - A casual board (or card) game is played in under an hour, set up and taught in under 10 minutes, and requires some light strategic thought.
Joystiq - So, what is casual? Portnow believes it's hard to define, but the quick and dirty answer is: a game that can be played in short sessions, lacks finality and is "replayable ad nauseam." Now, that could mean Bejeweled, but it may also include "hardcore" darlings like Geometry Wars.
Wikipedia - They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games.
About.com - Casual games are considered to be games that can be played quickly and easily
About.com - While the term “casual gamer” is utilized a great deal in today’s market, some experienced game players dislike the term and consider it divisive. That may be because the descriptor “casual game” is often (and incorrectly) utilized to identify easy and/or childish games that are repetitive and mind-numbingly simple. A casual game can actually take a lot of skill to master: again, consider Tetris, which has very basic rules, but boasts a heck of a challenge at certain levels. Well-built casual games should appeal to everyone, regardless of their skill level.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
casual game revolution - A casual board (or card) game is played in under an hour, set up and taught in under 10 minutes, and requires some light strategic thought.
Joystiq - So, what is casual? Portnow believes it's hard to define, but the quick and dirty answer is: a game that can be played in short sessions, lacks finality and is "replayable ad nauseam." Now, that could mean Bejeweled, but it may also include "hardcore" darlings like Geometry Wars.
Wikipedia - They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games.
About.com - Casual games are considered to be games that can be played quickly and easily
About.com - While the term “casual gamer” is utilized a great deal in today’s market, some experienced game players dislike the term and consider it divisive. That may be because the descriptor “casual game” is often (and incorrectly) utilized to identify easy and/or childish games that are repetitive and mind-numbingly simple. A casual game can actually take a lot of skill to master: again, consider Tetris, which has very basic rules, but boasts a heck of a challenge at certain levels. Well-built casual games should appeal to everyone, regardless of their skill level.
My gosh you're now posting examples that contradict your own argument. Do you realize your claim is that short play sessions are ALL that define how casual a game is? That's what you've said over and over... not that short play sessions contribute in part to how casual a game is. I've said more than a few times that short play sessions contribute to how casual a game is, but they're not the only thing. A lot of things make up how casual friendly a game is.
In these examples they mention things like complexity, controls, large amounts of options, etc. In one example (About.com) it even says it can be played "quickly and EASILY." Is this a joke?
The gamastura article talks a lot about accessibility, not about short play sessions. They're NOT the same thing. Accessibility may INCLUDE short play sessions, but that's not the only thing that makes a game accessible. That same article lists things like "unclear solutions" as something that makes a game hardcore (not casual). Unclear solutions in a puzzle game sounds like.... difficulty.
Throughout all of these examples there are a plethora of things that contribute to how casual a game is that AREN'T length of play sessions.
Also, what does irregularity have to do with length of play sessions? I've asked so many times now and I haven't gotten an answer.
*EDIT* Also that gamasutra article is pretty confused. One of the things it talks about is difficult controls. It was using Mario64 as an example of a hardcore game simply because you have to be taught certain controls, like the long jump. By this definition basically no game could be considered casual if it has any kind of learning curve at all. Heck, even bejeweled should be considered "hardcore" because you can't intuitively know that you have to line up 3 jewels in order to score points.
*EDIT EDIT* Also, finding examples of other people who agree with you (they don't, btw) doesn't make any of you right. You can claim that other people are using the word incorrectly as well, you are indeed using the word incorrectly.
No it doesn't contradict anything. Throughout them the common theme is short sessions.
Irregularity has really nothing to do with it. Irregularity can be a short session, it can be a long session.
Irregularity may define casual in some defniitions.
Casual games, overall, have been defined by how long the play sessions is. yes many do include other things, but virtually all have time in common - it seems to be the one thing they agree on.
You may think I'm using the word incorrectly. I say your using the phrase incorrectly.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No it doesn't contradict anything. Throughout them the common theme is short sessions.
Irregularity has really nothing to do with it. Irregularity can be a short session, it can be a long session.
Irregularity may define casual in some defniitions.
Casual games, overall, have been defined by how long the play sessions is. yes many do include other things, but virtually all have time in common - it seems to be the one thing they agree on.
You may think I'm using the word incorrectly. I say your using the phrase incorrectly.
No, you're using the word incorrectly. Finding obscure articles that agree with you (THEY DON'T BTW) doesn't mean you're using the words properly. The common theme was absolutely not short sessions, it was accessibility. A game being incredibly mechanically difficult makes it less accessible. If it takes a long time to become competent enough to play the game, it's not accessible.
The game can be casual or casual friendly, devs want to achieve the second, yet most of the time they end up with the first because it is easier to do.
Venge, you must take into account that Holophonist is a high level SC2 player (if I remember correctly) and he thinks difficulty plays a role in casual friendliness. That is why he gets defensive when we say "SC2 is more casual than LoL". His ego is on the line for him.
Why are you posting this instead of responding to either of the two posts of mine you have to respond to?
Oh, that's right. Because you have nothing to say to them. That's not going to stop you from chiming in on the discussion AFTER you've already been summarily escorted out of it though, apparently.
Why I don't respond to your earlier reply is because you makes no sense, and Venge is not making any headway either. We get it, you have negative associations toward the term casual and it is quite clear you hold yourself above LoL players since it is seemingly inconceivable that SC2 might be more casual friendly than LoL.
But we haven't said anything about which games requires more skill, what level of proficiency you should have or anything of the sort, now have we? We are not saying SC2 is easy (well, it depends on your opponent really). I don't have a position which game requires more skill (although it is fun to poke and prod since you seem to feel so strongly about it). A game can be hard yet casual friendly, and a game can be easy yet "hardcore".
Proficiency and mastery are beside the point. What we are focusing on is can you achieve something meaningful in a relative short amount of time and can you enjoy the game in those short episodes? That is what casual friendliness means in the context of video games.
For instance, in the context of board games, I've heard people talk about "light games" and "heavy games". One means a game can be finished within half an hour while the other is a game that can take multiple hours to resolve. Again, it doesn't mean that the heavier games are harder.
It is silly to make assumptions about how hard a game is based on its length, is it not? Similarly, it is silly to make assumptions how easy a game is based on its casual friendliness.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No it doesn't contradict anything. Throughout them the common theme is short sessions.
Irregularity has really nothing to do with it. Irregularity can be a short session, it can be a long session.
Irregularity may define casual in some defniitions.
Casual games, overall, have been defined by how long the play sessions is. yes many do include other things, but virtually all have time in common - it seems to be the one thing they agree on.
You may think I'm using the word incorrectly. I say your using the phrase incorrectly.
No, you're using the word incorrectly. Finding obscure articles that agree with you (THEY DON'T BTW) doesn't mean you're using the words properly. The common theme was absolutely not short sessions, it was accessibility. A game being incredibly mechanically difficult makes it less accessible. If it takes a long time to become competent enough to play the game, it's not accessible.
Accessibility is a whole other thing, man.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Venge, you must take into account that Holophonist is a high level SC2 player (if I remember correctly) and he thinks difficulty plays a role in casual friendliness. That is why he gets defensive when we say "SC2 is more casual than LoL". His ego is on the line for him.
Why are you posting this instead of responding to either of the two posts of mine you have to respond to?
Oh, that's right. Because you have nothing to say to them. That's not going to stop you from chiming in on the discussion AFTER you've already been summarily escorted out of it though, apparently.
Why I don't respond to your earlier reply is because you makes no sense, and Venge is not making any headway either. We get it, you have negative associations toward the term casual and it is quite clear you hold yourself above LoL players since it is seemingly inconceivable that SC2 might be more casual friendly than LoL.
I'm not sure what it is about you guys on this forum but you don't get to claim somebody makes no sense without being able to make your own point. You don't get to ignore points and make up definitions of words etc and then say I'm unreasonable or something of the sort. This is the height of arrogance. You're just saying "I'm right and I don't have to prove it to anybody." You don't want to learn or better yourself by having back and forth discussions.
It's not that I need to hold myself above anybody. It's just the truth. I didn't play BW, but I admit that it's a more difficult game than SC2. It's not ego, it's truth. I've used that very example in this exact discussion: the game I play is more casual than its predecessor, BW. So you can keep pushing this lie that I'm stroking my ego, but it doesn't make sense. That won't stop you from pushing it though.
But we haven't said anything about which games requires more skill, what level of proficiency you should have or anything of the sort, now have we? We are not saying SC2 is easy (well, it depends on your opponent really). I don't have a position which game requires more skill (although it is fun to poke and prod since you seem to feel so strongly about it). A game can be hard yet casual friendly, and a game can be easy yet "hardcore".
I never said you did. When comparing SC2 to LoL the point I've made is that I can't think of anybody who has played both and comes away with the conclusion that SC2 is more casual than LoL. Your ability to warp reality to say what you want it to say is astounding. Even my friends who are huge LoL fans admit that it's simply a more casual game. It's more accessible, it's mechanically easier, less stressful, etc. But by your definition, it would be less casual than SC2. That's why your definition is wrong... because it doesn't fit with reality. What other proof do you want?
Proficiency and mastery are beside the point. What we are focusing on is can you achieve something meaningful in a relative short amount of time and can you enjoy the game in those short episodes? That is what casual friendliness means in the context of video games.
For instance, in the context of board games, I've heard people talk about "light games" and "heavy games". One means a game can be finished within half an hour while the other is a game that can take multiple hours to resolve. Again, it doesn't mean that the heavier games are harder.
It is silly to make assumptions about how hard a game is based on its length, is it not? Similarly, it is silly to make assumptions how easy a game is based on its casual friendliness.
Wow this is such a waste of time. I never said that the length of a game says anything about its difficulty. And you can stop trying to make the point that length of play session plays a part in how casual a game is. For a lot of people I'm sure it does. What we're ACTUALLY focusing on is whether or not that's the ONLY thing. That's what you guys are claiming: How casual a game is determined by length of a play session. Nothing at all agrees with you. Not the definitions of the words themselves, and not even the obscure articles that Venge posted. Common sense doesn't even agree with you. A casual gamer is somebody who wants to be able to enjoy the game on their own time. If a game is mechanically difficult to the point where you have to hone your skills for a while before becoming competent, and you also have to keep up with those skills to remain competent, it's not very accessible, right? If it's not accessible, it's not casual. Difficulty is related to casual gaming.
Comments
What exactly are you disagreeing with here? I'm not denying that there are cultural forces that shift the status quo of every industry. What I'm saying is when we talk about the difference between our favorite old games and new games, there's more than just "nostalgia." There are actual differences between then and now and we prefer the "then."
You're right to say that there are other things (like perception) IN ADDITION to these actual changes, but the actual changes exist.
So, you agree that the horrid time wasting grind of the older games is essentially the same as the faster paced quest grinding of modern games? Then why even argue about the supposed superiority of the first attempts at MMO gameplay vs the present iterations?
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'm clarifying my last statement as you had originally picked up on the the "getting older" part.
I'm saying that "yes" there are changes but most people don't realize that these changes have not only been going on since "since" but will continue in our lives.
I think most gamers have a very laser focused sense of the game industry and have no sense of perspective since the industry is so young. At some point people are going to realize that the game industry will eventually swing back to older style games, at least at the very heart. It's just a matter of time.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I’m glad you said that, yes relaxed has nothing to do with time. Irregular has everything to do with time. A person with irregular play sessions does not have regular play sessions. It’s ridiculous that I had to say that sentence to you. A casual game does not require regular play seessions. Sessions can be done in short times, the player can play irregularly.
It is about the length of play session. I can’t believe your still trying to argue this. Difficulty is not the factor. They are games, they are played in downtime, hard or easy. Difficulty in a game has ZERO to do with relaxation.
The definition you used, your definition of relaxation and irregular play supports short play sessions.
Just because something can cause stress doesn't mean it will cause stress. Stress can be good, there is even a term for it, eustress.
I"m saying a person can be relaxed while playing a hard game, or an easy game. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of play. I'm saying a person can play a hard game or easy game regularly or irregularly. Therefore casual has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game.
Casual games are concerned with time. Thats it. Nothing more. You are reading somethign into it that doesn't exist.
Venge, you must take into account that Holophonist is a high level SC2 player (if I remember correctly) and he thinks difficulty plays a role in casual friendliness. That is why he gets defensive when we say "SC2 is more casual than LoL". His ego is on the line for him.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Why are you posting this instead of responding to either of the two posts of mine you have to respond to?
Oh, that's right. Because you have nothing to say to them. That's not going to stop you from chiming in on the discussion AFTER you've already been summarily escorted out of it though, apparently.
You didn't have to say that sentence to me. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. You don't get to be snarky if you're not right.
Irregularity doesn't have to do with the length of play sessions, yet your whole point is that length of play sessions is everything. So HOW ON EARTH can you cite the "irregularity" definition as support for your claim? How? You're saying shorter sessions are everything. Irregularity doesn't have anything to do with the length of play sessions. Why is this discussion still going on?
In what way does irregularity have anything to do with length of play sessions?
They don't. Relaxation doesn't imply short play session. You've never shown this connection. Same with irregularity.
AGAIN, YOU CAN HAVE A RELAXING AND LONG PLAY SESSION. YOU CAN ALSO HAVE A STRESSFUL BUT SHORT PLAY SESSION.
No what it means is casual is different for different people, not that casual has nothing to do with difficulty. Difficulty, play sessions, aesthetics, etc ALL FACTOR INTO making something more or less relaxaing, more or less CASUAL.
If you would continue with your thought process here you'd find that you could say that shorter play sessions could be more relaxing for some, and longer ones for others. So when you say a casual player would pick the game with the shorter play session, this is just so obviously wrong given the line of thinking you just put forward. Buuuuuut you'll somehow wriggle out of this to save face. That or you'll just stop responding. People on the internet seem to be utterly incapable of admitting they're wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as this.
But McDonalds and Walmart do adjust to the market, there are just small groups of vocal people who do not represent the market who like to bitch and whine about them because they're not doing what these small groups want. That's exactly what we're seeing in the MMO market. Small groups of old-school players who want games that are not wanted by the majority of the MMO players in the market. There's nothing wrong with what McDonalds and Walmart are doing, the majority of people shop there and they are very profitable. There are just a few self-important people who want everyone to think otherwise and who confuse the volume of their message with the popularity of their message..
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
The fact that there are a lot of "different" games coming out now says that a lot of us were/are right when we say that there isn't enough innovation in the scene and that there are underserved markets. There are a lot of sandbox games on the horizon for a reason.
Shorter play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. Longer play sessions can be more relaxing to some people. The relaxing is not what defines a casual game.
Historically casual games have been defined as short play sessions, not about how relaxing it is, not about how difficult it is, only about time.
Casual was always just about time. I know this hurts your feelings, but you don't get to change how it has been used just because you don't like it.
A casual game is one that lets someone make meaningful progress in short periods. Thats it nothing more.
I'm sure you will reply that I'm wrong. But as we are now just circling each other with no forward progress I will end this debate now.
Those were not abandoned by MMOs they were abandoned by players. The majority of players didn't care about those things so the MMOs stopped putting them into the games. You've got to realize that features are dictated by player demand, nor your personal wish list. If you don't fall into the majority, you lose.
Welcome to reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
There are lots of games announced, we'll see how any of them actually turn out. So far it's just hype but I think it's likely, based on past experience, that these sandbox games will come out and the old-school people will scream they're not done right, that they all suck and then start claiming that the perfect game is just over the horizon. It's happened before, I have no doubt it will happen again.
Let me know when there are actual games that are on the open market that are financially successful and lauded as the "perfect game" by old-school players. I think I'll have a long wait.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
on the question at the first here and the point made at the last, we can both wholeheartedly agree.
1. i do wonder what the impact of the indie and big company sandboxes will be over the next 5 years or so. although, we might know as early as two years in to this phase.
2. i don't think lobby games are mmo's. its not a value judgment, just taking issue with definitions here.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Thanks Holo, you nailed it. And I see you are soloing several posters; nicely done.
I completely agree with your excellent post, btw WTH have you been? 19 posts in five years!
+1; p.s. I'm hungry now thanks
+1
Excellent summation (and post)!
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Right, man. got it. It's not the relaxation. It's the irregularity... and you still haven't explained why irregularity means shorter play periods.
"I'm right because I'm right"
I'm not changing anything. I'm using the definitions of the words. You're not. Is it not possible that you THOUGHT it meant one thing and so every time you read something about "casual gamers" or "casual games" or "casual friendly games" that's how you interpreted it? but now that you've learned the actual definitions of the words you should probably just admit you're wrong.
I'll reply that you're wrong... because you're wrong. You haven't used any definition of any of the words to show that you're right. You just keep saying "this is how it is." Well.... not according to the english language.
bla bla bla bla bla you all are acting petty and you all are looking for a fight bla bla bla quit crying and there are good games coming out in are future if we dont destroy each other first
Ok I lied, damnit, sucked in again. Ok this is my last retort on this subject.
No it is not just my definition, it is the definition used by IMO the majority of the industy.
Just for some quick examples of how people are using it in the industy and in the world.
By far and away the most common definition is, short quick sessions.
Gamasutra – interesting article about hardcore, while not explicity stating casual. Challenge, according to them, does not make a game hardcore.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134514/evolving_the_social_game_finding_.php?print=1
casual game revolution - A casual board (or card) game is played in under an hour, set up and taught in under 10 minutes, and requires some light strategic thought.
Joystiq - So, what is casual? Portnow believes it's hard to define, but the quick and dirty answer is: a game that can be played in short sessions, lacks finality and is "replayable ad nauseam." Now, that could mean Bejeweled, but it may also include "hardcore" darlings like Geometry Wars.
Wikipedia - They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games.
About.com - Casual games are considered to be games that can be played quickly and easily
About.com - While the term “casual gamer” is utilized a great deal in today’s market, some experienced game players dislike the term and consider it divisive. That may be because the descriptor “casual game” is often (and incorrectly) utilized to identify easy and/or childish games that are repetitive and mind-numbingly simple. A casual game can actually take a lot of skill to master: again, consider Tetris, which has very basic rules, but boasts a heck of a challenge at certain levels. Well-built casual games should appeal to everyone, regardless of their skill level.
My gosh you're now posting examples that contradict your own argument. Do you realize your claim is that short play sessions are ALL that define how casual a game is? That's what you've said over and over... not that short play sessions contribute in part to how casual a game is. I've said more than a few times that short play sessions contribute to how casual a game is, but they're not the only thing. A lot of things make up how casual friendly a game is.
In these examples they mention things like complexity, controls, large amounts of options, etc. In one example (About.com) it even says it can be played "quickly and EASILY." Is this a joke?
The gamastura article talks a lot about accessibility, not about short play sessions. They're NOT the same thing. Accessibility may INCLUDE short play sessions, but that's not the only thing that makes a game accessible. That same article lists things like "unclear solutions" as something that makes a game hardcore (not casual). Unclear solutions in a puzzle game sounds like.... difficulty.
Throughout all of these examples there are a plethora of things that contribute to how casual a game is that AREN'T length of play sessions.
Also, what does irregularity have to do with length of play sessions? I've asked so many times now and I haven't gotten an answer.
*EDIT* Also that gamasutra article is pretty confused. One of the things it talks about is difficult controls. It was using Mario64 as an example of a hardcore game simply because you have to be taught certain controls, like the long jump. By this definition basically no game could be considered casual if it has any kind of learning curve at all. Heck, even bejeweled should be considered "hardcore" because you can't intuitively know that you have to line up 3 jewels in order to score points.
*EDIT EDIT* Also, finding examples of other people who agree with you (they don't, btw) doesn't make any of you right. You can claim that other people are using the word incorrectly as well, you are indeed using the word incorrectly.
No it doesn't contradict anything. Throughout them the common theme is short sessions.
Irregularity has really nothing to do with it. Irregularity can be a short session, it can be a long session.
Irregularity may define casual in some defniitions.
Casual games, overall, have been defined by how long the play sessions is. yes many do include other things, but virtually all have time in common - it seems to be the one thing they agree on.
You may think I'm using the word incorrectly. I say your using the phrase incorrectly.
No, you're using the word incorrectly. Finding obscure articles that agree with you (THEY DON'T BTW) doesn't mean you're using the words properly. The common theme was absolutely not short sessions, it was accessibility. A game being incredibly mechanically difficult makes it less accessible. If it takes a long time to become competent enough to play the game, it's not accessible.
The game can be casual or casual friendly, devs want to achieve the second, yet most of the time they end up with the first because it is easier to do.
Flame on!
Why I don't respond to your earlier reply is because you makes no sense, and Venge is not making any headway either. We get it, you have negative associations toward the term casual and it is quite clear you hold yourself above LoL players since it is seemingly inconceivable that SC2 might be more casual friendly than LoL.
But we haven't said anything about which games requires more skill, what level of proficiency you should have or anything of the sort, now have we? We are not saying SC2 is easy (well, it depends on your opponent really). I don't have a position which game requires more skill (although it is fun to poke and prod since you seem to feel so strongly about it). A game can be hard yet casual friendly, and a game can be easy yet "hardcore".
Proficiency and mastery are beside the point. What we are focusing on is can you achieve something meaningful in a relative short amount of time and can you enjoy the game in those short episodes? That is what casual friendliness means in the context of video games.
For instance, in the context of board games, I've heard people talk about "light games" and "heavy games". One means a game can be finished within half an hour while the other is a game that can take multiple hours to resolve. Again, it doesn't mean that the heavier games are harder.
It is silly to make assumptions about how hard a game is based on its length, is it not? Similarly, it is silly to make assumptions how easy a game is based on its casual friendliness.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Accessibility is a whole other thing, man.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm not sure what it is about you guys on this forum but you don't get to claim somebody makes no sense without being able to make your own point. You don't get to ignore points and make up definitions of words etc and then say I'm unreasonable or something of the sort. This is the height of arrogance. You're just saying "I'm right and I don't have to prove it to anybody." You don't want to learn or better yourself by having back and forth discussions.
It's not that I need to hold myself above anybody. It's just the truth. I didn't play BW, but I admit that it's a more difficult game than SC2. It's not ego, it's truth. I've used that very example in this exact discussion: the game I play is more casual than its predecessor, BW. So you can keep pushing this lie that I'm stroking my ego, but it doesn't make sense. That won't stop you from pushing it though.
I never said you did. When comparing SC2 to LoL the point I've made is that I can't think of anybody who has played both and comes away with the conclusion that SC2 is more casual than LoL. Your ability to warp reality to say what you want it to say is astounding. Even my friends who are huge LoL fans admit that it's simply a more casual game. It's more accessible, it's mechanically easier, less stressful, etc. But by your definition, it would be less casual than SC2. That's why your definition is wrong... because it doesn't fit with reality. What other proof do you want?
Wow this is such a waste of time. I never said that the length of a game says anything about its difficulty. And you can stop trying to make the point that length of play session plays a part in how casual a game is. For a lot of people I'm sure it does. What we're ACTUALLY focusing on is whether or not that's the ONLY thing. That's what you guys are claiming: How casual a game is determined by length of a play session. Nothing at all agrees with you. Not the definitions of the words themselves, and not even the obscure articles that Venge posted. Common sense doesn't even agree with you. A casual gamer is somebody who wants to be able to enjoy the game on their own time. If a game is mechanically difficult to the point where you have to hone your skills for a while before becoming competent, and you also have to keep up with those skills to remain competent, it's not very accessible, right? If it's not accessible, it's not casual. Difficulty is related to casual gaming.