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.
You scoured through the Internet until you found a definition you liked completely separated from context, huh? The fact that you need to cower behind a definition makes your side look weak.
I don't remember saying time required is the ONLY thing relevant to being casual friendliness, did I? I also said the ability to save at will, and continue at will contribute to casual friendliness. What is not relevant, however, is how hard the game is.
Accessibility is whole different subject altogether. You want to talk about accessibility next? Easy access definitely contributes to casual friendliness, but it doesn't mean the game is easy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
You scoured through the Internet until you found a definition you liked completely separated from context, huh? The fact that you need to cower behind a definition makes your side look weak.
I don't remember saying time required is the ONLY thing relevant to being casual friendliness, did I? I also said the ability to save at will, and continue at will contribute to casual friendliness. What is not relevant, however, is how hard the game is.
Accessibility is whole different subject altogether. You want to talk about accessibility next? Easy access definitely contributes to casual friendliness, but it doesn't mean the game is easy.
Who's scouring the internet? I'm using the actual definitions of the words. This has to be a troll... it has to be. The fact that I have to cower behind a definition makes my side look weak? I just this second realized... you are a troll. All of our past conversations make sense. Yes man... in a discussion about the definition of words, I'm hiding behind the definitions of those words. And it's not out of context at all. We're talking about casual gamers. They play games casually. They want to relax and have a good time. You can do that whether you're playing for 30 minutes or 3 hours. One of the things that is related to the stress level of a game (anti-relaxation) is difficulty.
And btw you disagree with Venge about the definition of a casual friendly game. He says the only thing that matters is the length of the play session. Also, that's the conversation that you're coming into the middle of. So if you have a different definition of the guy you're defending, then you might want to make that clear.
And it's pretty convenient that your definition of a casual game is basically the same as talking about accessibility except MINUS the difficulty of the game. Basically you want to have a discussion about a term that doesn't have to conform to the definitions of the words that make it up, and then you want to make up a definition for that term.... really useful conversation we're having here.
The chess analogy is retarded. When you play a PVE MMO you're always playing against the same opponent. When you play chess, you're not. You think chess is casual friendly? Play Bobby Fischer every time from your first game and tell us how accessible and casual friendly you think it is.
There's two type of people in this "debate". There's people who had challenging content in MMO's and there's the people who are wrong. You could log into WoW on Day 1, go out to adventure and go two hours without dieing. You couldn't do that in any of the first generation MMO's. To argue otherwise just illustrates that you're ignorant. "Dieing is just a grind"... yeah, so is losing to Bobby Fisher, 700 times.
Some people will play Bobby Fisher that 701st time. Most of you would give up at three.
I think it's the game that determines if you are a casual or hardcore. People play casual mobile games more than raiders did in EQ. They can play anywhere too.
People determine how they will play a game before they play it? Even hardcore that kinda takes the fun out of it.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The chess analogy is retarded. When you play a PVE MMO you're always playing against the same opponent. When you play chess, you're not. You think chess is casual friendly? Play Bobby Fischer every time from your first game and tell us how accessible and casual friendly you think it is.
There's two type of people in this "debate". There's people who had challenging content in MMO's and there's the people who are wrong. You could log into WoW on Day 1, go out to adventure and go two hours without dieing. You couldn't do that in any of the first generation MMO's. To argue otherwise just illustrates that you're ignorant. "Dieing is just a grind"... yeah, so is losing to Bobby Fisher, 700 times.
Some people will play Bobby Fisher that 701st time. Most of you would give up at three.
Apparently there's also people who know they invented computer chess opponents and people who don't.
This thread has become amazing. There is not a capital O big enough nor a little o little enough to express how agog I am at this thread. I'll try, but it's not going to even be close.
O.o
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
You scoured through the Internet until you found a definition you liked completely separated from context, huh? The fact that you need to cower behind a definition makes your side look weak.
I don't remember saying time required is the ONLY thing relevant to being casual friendliness, did I? I also said the ability to save at will, and continue at will contribute to casual friendliness. What is not relevant, however, is how hard the game is.
Accessibility is whole different subject altogether. You want to talk about accessibility next? Easy access definitely contributes to casual friendliness, but it doesn't mean the game is easy.
Who's scouring the internet? I'm using the actual definitions of the words. This has to be a troll... it has to be. The fact that I have to cower behind a definition makes my side look weak? I just this second realized... you are a troll. All of our past conversations make sense. Yes man... in a discussion about the definition of words, I'm hiding behind the definitions of those words. And it's not out of context at all. We're talking about casual gamers. They play games casually. They want to relax and have a good time. You can do that whether you're playing for 30 minutes or 3 hours. One of the things that is related to the stress level of a game (anti-relaxation) is difficulty.
And btw you disagree with Venge about the definition of a casual friendly game. He says the only thing that matters is the length of the play session. Also, that's the conversation that you're coming into the middle of. So if you have a different definition of the guy you're defending, then you might want to make that clear.
And it's pretty convenient that your definition of a casual game is basically the same as talking about accessibility except MINUS the difficulty of the game. Basically you want to have a discussion about a term that doesn't have to conform to the definitions of the words that make it up, and then you want to make up a definition for that term.... really useful conversation we're having here.
No, your definition of accessibility is wrong. It does not describe short play sessions, but it may describe how quickly you can start playing and enjoying the game. Games where you are literally just one button press away from having fun, are accessible.
Venge already explained thoroughly what he means by casual friendliness. He provided you with links where people talk with similar meaning. No one refers to difficulty when they talk about casual friendliness. I cannot imagine what has made you think that they are related.
When you talk about how much skill is involved and how much proficiency needs to be gained before properly playing the game, you are no longer talking about casual friendliness, but usability design. Being casual friendly or not has nothing to do with initial adoption of the game or first time use.
I will try this again:
Casual friendliness means that once you have learned the game, you can play it casually. You can play SC2 in short bursts with minimal to no preparation and little effort, one match at a time - do chores between them.
This is in contrast to games where you must attend you keyboard for lengthy periods of time, and where every gaming session takes a lengthy preparation and some effort to begin. These games are "hardcore". (Mind you, playing a hardcore game doesn't automatically make you a "hardcore player" and you can certainly play a casual friendly game "hardcore".)
In neither description do I need to mention which game is harder, because skill does not affect how casual friendly a game is. I have witnessed a few times where a very skilled FPS player makes a comeback to the tournament scene and beats the "hardcore players" there. He was a hardcore player once, but nowadays he plays FPS games casually. Therefore he is a casual player.
If the game makes it possible to be a casual player (i.e you don't have to spend lengthy times grinding stuff to be prepared) the game is casual friendly.
About Guild Wars Prophecies (GW1):
"[...] Important goals of the game are both to minimize the amount of repetitive actions a player has to perform to become a respectable force in the gaming world (called grind), and also to minimize a player's dependency on game items to stay competitive. These are two goals that set the game apart from most MMORPG's, where one hardcore player will gain major advantages when competing against another more casual gamer simply from having played the game more and found better items. In Guild Wars, the advantages in battle will instead come from how well a player picks and uses the character's 8 skills (from a library of hundreds), an art that is hard to master. [...]"
Do you know why SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL also? Because in LoL you need to grind your avatar level up to 30 before you can be properly competitive. In SC2, if you have the skill you can beat anyone right away. No grind to become competitive or to stay competitive, no preparation, no lengthy play sessions. It is a casual friendly game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
You scoured through the Internet until you found a definition you liked completely separated from context, huh? The fact that you need to cower behind a definition makes your side look weak.
I don't remember saying time required is the ONLY thing relevant to being casual friendliness, did I? I also said the ability to save at will, and continue at will contribute to casual friendliness. What is not relevant, however, is how hard the game is.
Accessibility is whole different subject altogether. You want to talk about accessibility next? Easy access definitely contributes to casual friendliness, but it doesn't mean the game is easy.
Who's scouring the internet? I'm using the actual definitions of the words. This has to be a troll... it has to be. The fact that I have to cower behind a definition makes my side look weak? I just this second realized... you are a troll. All of our past conversations make sense. Yes man... in a discussion about the definition of words, I'm hiding behind the definitions of those words. And it's not out of context at all. We're talking about casual gamers. They play games casually. They want to relax and have a good time. You can do that whether you're playing for 30 minutes or 3 hours. One of the things that is related to the stress level of a game (anti-relaxation) is difficulty.
And btw you disagree with Venge about the definition of a casual friendly game. He says the only thing that matters is the length of the play session. Also, that's the conversation that you're coming into the middle of. So if you have a different definition of the guy you're defending, then you might want to make that clear.
And it's pretty convenient that your definition of a casual game is basically the same as talking about accessibility except MINUS the difficulty of the game. Basically you want to have a discussion about a term that doesn't have to conform to the definitions of the words that make it up, and then you want to make up a definition for that term.... really useful conversation we're having here.
No, your definition of accessibility is wrong. It does not describe short play sessions, but it may describe how quickly you can start playing and enjoying the game. Games where you are literally just one button press away from having fun, are accessible.
Venge already explained thoroughly what he means by casual friendliness. He provided you with links where people talk with similar meaning. No one refers to difficulty when they talk about casual friendliness. I cannot imagine what has made you think that they are related.
When you talk about how much skill is involved and how much proficiency needs to be gained before properly playing the game, you are no longer talking about casual friendliness, but usability design. Being casual friendly or not has nothing to do with initial adoption of the game or first time use.
I will try this again:
Casual friendliness means that once you have learned the game, you can play it casually. You can play SC2 in short bursts with minimal to no preparation and little effort, one match at a time - do chores between them.
This is in contrast to games where you must attend you keyboard for lengthy periods of time, and where every gaming session takes a lengthy preparation and some effort to begin. These games are "hardcore". (Mind you, playing a hardcore game doesn't automatically make you a "hardcore player" and you can certainly play a casual friendly game "hardcore".)
In neither description do I need to mention which game is harder, because skill does not affect how casual friendly a game is. I have witnessed a few times where a very skilled FPS player makes a comeback to the tournament scene and beats the "hardcore players" there. He was a hardcore player once, but nowadays he plays FPS games casually. Therefore he is a casual player.
If the game makes it possible to be a casual player (i.e you don't have to spend lengthy times grinding stuff to be prepared) the game is casual friendly.
About Guild Wars Prophecies (GW1):
"[...] Important goals of the game are both to minimize the amount of repetitive actions a player has to perform to become a respectable force in the gaming world (called grind), and also to minimize a player's dependency on game items to stay competitive. These are two goals that set the game apart from most MMORPG's, where one hardcore player will gain major advantages when competing against another more casual gamer simply from having played the game more and found better items. In Guild Wars, the advantages in battle will instead come from how well a player picks and uses the character's 8 skills (from a library of hundreds), an art that is hard to master. [...]"
Do you know why SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL also? Because in LoL you need to grind your avatar level up to 30 before you can be properly competitive. In SC2, if you have the skill you can beat anyone right away. No grind to become competitive or to stay competitive, no preparation, no lengthy play sessions. It is a casual friendly game.
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Originally posted by immodium Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
When will the madness stop?!? Next you'll tell us that all games require skill in one form or another.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
Originally posted by immodium Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
When will the madness stop?!? Next you'll tell us that all games require skill in one form or another.
The madness will stop when people realize Casual & Hardcore have nothing to do with skill.
Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by immodium Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
Well that's just silly. What about match based games? What about persistent games like mmos?
In all of my interactions with people regarding video games, anytime somebody has said "man, that game is hardcore" they've never been talking about the length of play session. They're always talking about difficulty and how unforgiving it is. Dark Souls for example has an autosave function, all of your progress is saved. By your definition it should be considered incredibly casual, yet it's considered very hardcore. Why? Because it's very difficult and unforgiving.
Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
Well that's just silly. What about match based games? What about persistent games like mmos?
Matched based games are casual, I've had very casual game's of SC & SC2. Most of the time they lasted average 15 mins. Unless you got an idiot who wanted to 1v1 on a 3v3 map. Even then I wouldn't call that hardcore just a very tedious game of SC.
Hardcore persistent MMO's have perma-death IMO.
I agree games ahve been getting more casual friendly.
I remember in the 80's playing Jet Set Willy 2. It was a platform game and you had 9 lives, no save. If you wanted to complete that game you had to dedicate an evening to it. So many evening's as as soon as you lost those lives you started from the beginning. I never completed it, I wasn't hardcore enough.
Skip too 2000's and spectrum emulation that allows saving I can now play that casual.
IMO ALL games with a save function are casual. You may be able to choose to play them hardcore if you wish but you can still play them very casual.
Originally posted by Holophonist In all of my interactions with people regarding video games, anytime somebody has said "man, that game is hardcore" they've never been talking about the length of play session. They're always talking about difficulty and how unforgiving it is. Dark Souls for example has an autosave function, all of your progress is saved. By your definition it should be considered incredibly casual, yet it's considered very hardcore. Why? Because it's very difficult and unforgiving.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
There is no competition between the two, because a Person that plays something casually can play it hardcore the next day. Its all in the mindset of the player.
Nothing is stopping me playing EVE casually, or even Dark souls casually, I can decide to kill that one enemy then stop and repeat it as much time as I want. And I can call that game casual if I want it to.
I think the biggest question that we must ask ourselves is that there is no longer Manual for Games.
I believe all the older gamers on this forum remembers reading gaming Manuals, Reading the tricks, the rules, where to go and where not to go to power level themselves so that they are always on top of the game. That is Hardcore, because you will be left behind if you don't do the prep work beforehand and all the players that comes in afterwards will be looking for those hardcore players for help and to hire them to help them past the contents and learn the trick of the trade.
All the games nowadays no longer have Manuals, they have quick 5 minute tutorials that pretty much teaches everything you will ever need to know. All the contents are available for any skill level players might have. There is no more prep work. There is no more fear to mess up, because once any punishment is given , forum outcry happens, and developer caves and removes it.
That is the problem of this generation of games.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
There is no competition between the two, because a Person that plays something casually can play it hardcore the next day. Its all in the mindset of the player.
Nothing is stopping me playing EVE casually, or even Dark souls casually, I can decide to kill that one enemy then stop and repeat it as much time as I want. And I can call that game casual if I want it to.
I think the biggest question that we must ask ourselves is that there is no longer Manual for Games.
I believe all the older gamers on this forum remembers reading gaming Manuals, Reading the tricks, the rules, where to go and where not to go to power level themselves so that they are always on top of the game. That is Hardcore, because you will be left behind if you don't do the prep work beforehand and all the players that comes in afterwards will be looking for those hardcore players for help and to hire them to help them past the contents and learn the trick of the trade.
All the games nowadays no longer have Manuals, they have quick 5 minute tutorials that pretty much teaches everything you will ever need to know. All the contents are available for any skill level players might have. There is no more prep work. There is no more fear to mess up, because once any punishment is given , forum outcry happens, and developer caves and removes it.
That is the problem of this generation of games.
Never thought of that, good point.
The new game smell you got when opening a cardboard box I do miss. There was a buzz to opening a cardboard box that contained one or two floppies (even a cassette sometimes) a code wheel and a manual.
I think the original point of MMORPGs were to play with, along side and against other players. Over the years games have more and more bubbled you off in your own world and being social many times slows the purpose of the game, progression.
I don't expect MMORPGS to replace Facebook... yet. Only the Sims Online failure has prevented a main stream social MMO. I think the world is ready for an MMO that allows you to share statuses, pictures and videos. I do expect to interact with other players even if it includes annoyance.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by immodium Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by immodium Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
Well that's just silly. What about match based games? What about persistent games like mmos?
Matched based games are casual, I've had very casual game's of SC & SC2. Most of the time they lasted average 15 mins. Unless you got an idiot who wanted to 1v1 on a 3v3 map. Even then I wouldn't call that hardcore just a very tedious game of SC.
Hardcore persistent MMO's have perma-death IMO.
I agree games ahve been getting more casual friendly.
I remember in the 80's playing Jet Set Willy 2. It was a platform game and you had 9 lives, no save. If you wanted to complete that game you had to dedicate an evening to it. So many evening's as as soon as you lost those lives you started from the beginning. I never completed it, I wasn't hardcore enough.
Skip too 2000's and spectrum emulation that allows saving I can now play that casual.
IMO ALL games with a save function are casual. You may be able to choose to play them hardcore if you wish but you can still play them very casual.
FYI - youre saying that staple "hardcore" games like BW, TFC, Darkfall, UO aren't hardcore, they're casual. It seems like what's happening is you start with a definition off the top of your head and when you're faced with reality that contradicts that definition, you just warp reality in your mind instead of just admitting your initial assessment was wrong.
Originally posted by Holophonist In all of my interactions with people regarding video games, anytime somebody has said "man, that game is hardcore" they've never been talking about the length of play session. They're always talking about difficulty and how unforgiving it is. Dark Souls for example has an autosave function, all of your progress is saved. By your definition it should be considered incredibly casual, yet it's considered very hardcore. Why? Because it's very difficult and unforgiving.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
So the many people who classify difficult games like dark souls as being hardcore are wrong?
I think the original point of MMORPGs were to play with, along side and against other players. Over the years games have more and more bubbled you off in your own world and being social many times slows the purpose of the game, progression.
I don't expect MMORPGS to replace Facebook... yet. Only the Sims Online failure has prevented a main stream social MMO. I think the world is ready for an MMO that allows you to share statuses, pictures and videos. I do expect to interact with other players even if it includes annoyance.
That last bit is important. I feel like in order to have the possibility for amazing experiences in MMOs you have to be given enough freedom to also have annoying experiences.
Originally posted by Holophonist In all of my interactions with people regarding video games, anytime somebody has said "man, that game is hardcore" they've never been talking about the length of play session. They're always talking about difficulty and how unforgiving it is. Dark Souls for example has an autosave function, all of your progress is saved. By your definition it should be considered incredibly casual, yet it's considered very hardcore. Why? Because it's very difficult and unforgiving.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
So the many people who classify difficult games like dark souls as being hardcore are wrong?
Depends what levels he's playing it.
Hardcore is like the phrase diehard, having an extreme dedication to a certain activity. If they are playing DS to that extent then yes, they are hardcore.
Are people thinking it means hard as the first four letters spell hard in hardcore? I hope not.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by immodium Originally posted by Holophonist In all of my interactions with people regarding video games, anytime somebody has said "man, that game is hardcore" they've never been talking about the length of play session. They're always talking about difficulty and how unforgiving it is. Dark Souls for example has an autosave function, all of your progress is saved. By your definition it should be considered incredibly casual, yet it's considered very hardcore. Why? Because it's very difficult and unforgiving.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
So the many people who classify difficult games like dark souls as being hardcore are wrong?
Depends what levels he's playing it.
Hardcore is like the phrase diehard, having an extreme dedication to a certain activity. If they are playing DS to that extent then yes, they are hardcore.
Are people thinking it means hard as the first four letters spell hard in hardcore? I hope not.
You're not grasping the point of the discussion I think. People can play games casually or hardcore. The question is what qualities to facilitate each. Or more importantly, what qualities attract which kind of player.
Comments
You scoured through the Internet until you found a definition you liked completely separated from context, huh? The fact that you need to cower behind a definition makes your side look weak.
I don't remember saying time required is the ONLY thing relevant to being casual friendliness, did I? I also said the ability to save at will, and continue at will contribute to casual friendliness. What is not relevant, however, is how hard the game is.
Accessibility is whole different subject altogether. You want to talk about accessibility next? Easy access definitely contributes to casual friendliness, but it doesn't mean the game is easy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Who's scouring the internet? I'm using the actual definitions of the words. This has to be a troll... it has to be. The fact that I have to cower behind a definition makes my side look weak? I just this second realized... you are a troll. All of our past conversations make sense. Yes man... in a discussion about the definition of words, I'm hiding behind the definitions of those words. And it's not out of context at all. We're talking about casual gamers. They play games casually. They want to relax and have a good time. You can do that whether you're playing for 30 minutes or 3 hours. One of the things that is related to the stress level of a game (anti-relaxation) is difficulty.
And btw you disagree with Venge about the definition of a casual friendly game. He says the only thing that matters is the length of the play session. Also, that's the conversation that you're coming into the middle of. So if you have a different definition of the guy you're defending, then you might want to make that clear.
And it's pretty convenient that your definition of a casual game is basically the same as talking about accessibility except MINUS the difficulty of the game. Basically you want to have a discussion about a term that doesn't have to conform to the definitions of the words that make it up, and then you want to make up a definition for that term.... really useful conversation we're having here.
The chess analogy is retarded. When you play a PVE MMO you're always playing against the same opponent. When you play chess, you're not. You think chess is casual friendly? Play Bobby Fischer every time from your first game and tell us how accessible and casual friendly you think it is.
There's two type of people in this "debate". There's people who had challenging content in MMO's and there's the people who are wrong. You could log into WoW on Day 1, go out to adventure and go two hours without dieing. You couldn't do that in any of the first generation MMO's. To argue otherwise just illustrates that you're ignorant. "Dieing is just a grind"... yeah, so is losing to Bobby Fisher, 700 times.
Some people will play Bobby Fisher that 701st time. Most of you would give up at three.
I think it's the game that determines if you are a casual or hardcore. People play casual mobile games more than raiders did in EQ. They can play anywhere too.
People determine how they will play a game before they play it? Even hardcore that kinda takes the fun out of it.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Apparently there's also people who know they invented computer chess opponents and people who don't.
This thread has become amazing. There is not a capital O big enough nor a little o little enough to express how agog I am at this thread. I'll try, but it's not going to even be close.
O.o
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No, your definition of accessibility is wrong. It does not describe short play sessions, but it may describe how quickly you can start playing and enjoying the game. Games where you are literally just one button press away from having fun, are accessible.
Venge already explained thoroughly what he means by casual friendliness. He provided you with links where people talk with similar meaning. No one refers to difficulty when they talk about casual friendliness. I cannot imagine what has made you think that they are related.
When you talk about how much skill is involved and how much proficiency needs to be gained before properly playing the game, you are no longer talking about casual friendliness, but usability design. Being casual friendly or not has nothing to do with initial adoption of the game or first time use.
I will try this again:
Casual friendliness means that once you have learned the game, you can play it casually. You can play SC2 in short bursts with minimal to no preparation and little effort, one match at a time - do chores between them.
This is in contrast to games where you must attend you keyboard for lengthy periods of time, and where every gaming session takes a lengthy preparation and some effort to begin. These games are "hardcore". (Mind you, playing a hardcore game doesn't automatically make you a "hardcore player" and you can certainly play a casual friendly game "hardcore".)
In neither description do I need to mention which game is harder, because skill does not affect how casual friendly a game is. I have witnessed a few times where a very skilled FPS player makes a comeback to the tournament scene and beats the "hardcore players" there. He was a hardcore player once, but nowadays he plays FPS games casually. Therefore he is a casual player.
If the game makes it possible to be a casual player (i.e you don't have to spend lengthy times grinding stuff to be prepared) the game is casual friendly.
About Guild Wars Prophecies (GW1):
"[...] Important goals of the game are both to minimize the amount of repetitive actions a player has to perform to become a respectable force in the gaming world (called grind), and also to minimize a player's dependency on game items to stay competitive. These are two goals that set the game apart from most MMORPG's, where one hardcore player will gain major advantages when competing against another more casual gamer simply from having played the game more and found better items. In Guild Wars, the advantages in battle will instead come from how well a player picks and uses the character's 8 skills (from a library of hundreds), an art that is hard to master. [...]"
Do you know why SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL also? Because in LoL you need to grind your avatar level up to 30 before you can be properly competitive. In SC2, if you have the skill you can beat anyone right away. No grind to become competitive or to stay competitive, no preparation, no lengthy play sessions. It is a casual friendly game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Any game can be played casual or hardcore, Call of Duty, Starcraft 2, Civilization, Chess. Even Pong. All can be played both hardcore and casual.
When will the madness stop?!? Next you'll tell us that all games require skill in one form or another.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.
The madness will stop when people realize Casual & Hardcore have nothing to do with skill.
Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
Well that's just silly. What about match based games? What about persistent games like mmos?Matched based games are casual, I've had very casual game's of SC & SC2. Most of the time they lasted average 15 mins. Unless you got an idiot who wanted to 1v1 on a 3v3 map. Even then I wouldn't call that hardcore just a very tedious game of SC.
Hardcore persistent MMO's have perma-death IMO.
I agree games ahve been getting more casual friendly.
I remember in the 80's playing Jet Set Willy 2. It was a platform game and you had 9 lives, no save. If you wanted to complete that game you had to dedicate an evening to it. So many evening's as as soon as you lost those lives you started from the beginning. I never completed it, I wasn't hardcore enough.
Skip too 2000's and spectrum emulation that allows saving I can now play that casual.
IMO ALL games with a save function are casual. You may be able to choose to play them hardcore if you wish but you can still play them very casual.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
Hardcore vs Casual
There is no competition between the two, because a Person that plays something casually can play it hardcore the next day. Its all in the mindset of the player.
Nothing is stopping me playing EVE casually, or even Dark souls casually, I can decide to kill that one enemy then stop and repeat it as much time as I want. And I can call that game casual if I want it to.
I think the biggest question that we must ask ourselves is that there is no longer Manual for Games.
I believe all the older gamers on this forum remembers reading gaming Manuals, Reading the tricks, the rules, where to go and where not to go to power level themselves so that they are always on top of the game. That is Hardcore, because you will be left behind if you don't do the prep work beforehand and all the players that comes in afterwards will be looking for those hardcore players for help and to hire them to help them past the contents and learn the trick of the trade.
All the games nowadays no longer have Manuals, they have quick 5 minute tutorials that pretty much teaches everything you will ever need to know. All the contents are available for any skill level players might have. There is no more prep work. There is no more fear to mess up, because once any punishment is given , forum outcry happens, and developer caves and removes it.
That is the problem of this generation of games.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Never thought of that, good point.
The new game smell you got when opening a cardboard box I do miss.
There was a buzz to opening a cardboard box that contained one or two floppies (even a cassette sometimes) a code wheel and a manual.
Good bed time reading for me those manuals.
I think the original point of MMORPGs were to play with, along side and against other players. Over the years games have more and more bubbled you off in your own world and being social many times slows the purpose of the game, progression.
I don't expect MMORPGS to replace Facebook... yet. Only the Sims Online failure has prevented a main stream social MMO. I think the world is ready for an MMO that allows you to share statuses, pictures and videos. I do expect to interact with other players even if it includes annoyance.
The question is what qualities make a game more or less casual friendly. Of course you can play any game however you like, but certain things make it easier to play a certain way, or make it more geared towards a certain type of player: casual, hardcore.Any game with a save facility is Casual.
Any game that doesn't is Hardcore.
Well that's just silly. What about match based games? What about persistent games like mmos?Matched based games are casual, I've had very casual game's of SC & SC2. Most of the time they lasted average 15 mins. Unless you got an idiot who wanted to 1v1 on a 3v3 map. Even then I wouldn't call that hardcore just a very tedious game of SC.
Hardcore persistent MMO's have perma-death IMO.
I agree games ahve been getting more casual friendly.
I remember in the 80's playing Jet Set Willy 2. It was a platform game and you had 9 lives, no save. If you wanted to complete that game you had to dedicate an evening to it. So many evening's as as soon as you lost those lives you started from the beginning. I never completed it, I wasn't hardcore enough.
Skip too 2000's and spectrum emulation that allows saving I can now play that casual.
IMO ALL games with a save function are casual. You may be able to choose to play them hardcore if you wish but you can still play them very casual.
FYI - youre saying that staple "hardcore" games like BW, TFC, Darkfall, UO aren't hardcore, they're casual. It seems like what's happening is you start with a definition off the top of your head and when you're faced with reality that contradicts that definition, you just warp reality in your mind instead of just admitting your initial assessment was wrong.There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
So the many people who classify difficult games like dark souls as being hardcore are wrong?
That last bit is important. I feel like in order to have the possibility for amazing experiences in MMOs you have to be given enough freedom to also have annoying experiences.Depends what levels he's playing it.
Hardcore is like the phrase diehard, having an extreme dedication to a certain activity. If they are playing DS to that extent then yes, they are hardcore.
Are people thinking it means hard as the first four letters spell hard in hardcore? I hope not.
There's a big difference between Hardcore/Casual and Hard/Easy.
That's why this debate is pretty silly. What you find hard, some one will find easy.
So the many people who classify difficult games like dark souls as being hardcore are wrong?Depends what levels he's playing it.
Hardcore is like the phrase diehard, having an extreme dedication to a certain activity. If they are playing DS to that extent then yes, they are hardcore.
Are people thinking it means hard as the first four letters spell hard in hardcore? I hope not.
You're not grasping the point of the discussion I think. People can play games casually or hardcore. The question is what qualities to facilitate each. Or more importantly, what qualities attract which kind of player.