The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
I would say that it is not us making up a strict definition of casual, it is you.
It just refers to how long it takes to do something meaningfull. Not how hard the game is, or how long the whole game takes.
If SC2 takes less time than LoL, despite being harder then yes it is more casual friendly. Nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the game.
Not how much it appeals to casual players, just how long it takes to do something meaningfull.
How am I making up a strict definition when my definition includes yours PLUS more? I'm saying the definition is how much casual players enjoy the game. That could be length of play session, difficulty, aesthetics etc. You guys are saying it's just time to achieve something. Yours is the strict one, it seems.
The fact that you're admitting that by your definition SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL really shows me how wrong your definition is. And this is what I mean by you making up a definition and then using that definition as proof. I'm observing the end result which is how many casual players are playing each game. I'm also observing what the community says about each game. OVERWHELMINGLY people admit that LoL is a far more casual game than SC2. The fact that your definition describes SC2 as being more casual shows that your definition is wrong.
You're just saying that casual friendly = how long it takes to do something. What it literally means is how much it appeals to casual players. You don't think a casual player would care about things other than how long it takes to do something? What about a game that is incredibly frustratingly hard? you don't think a casual player might be averse to playing that game?
How are you making up a strict definition when yours includes mine plus more? That makes it different from mine - therefore you are making up your own definition. Pretty simple.
You're conveniently leaving out the word strict because you know that's what I'm getting at. Mine isn't as strict as yours because mine includes yours plus more. I'm not saying my definition isn't different from yours, I'm saying yours is the strict one.
If SC2 requires less time it is more casual, nothing about that states difficulty, nothing about that implies how hard or easy the game is. If you feel otherwise that is your personal definition.
Your fact based on your obseravation and what you see people saying... is not fact.
Casual has never meant how much it appeals to casual players, ever, not once. It just means how long it takes to do something. Thats it.
Anything is just yours.
Incredibly frustrating and hard, but can still be done in short periods. Yes still casual. Nothing about who it appeals to.
This is all just you still claiming the word casual friendly means something with no reason to back it up. You're just simply asserting that casual friendliness is how long it takes to do something. From what divine entity are you drawing this power to make that claim? There's nothing to support it.
A casual player is not defined as casual because they do not like difficulty, that is your definition. A casual player is defined, by most, as someone who doesn't play a lot. Again only time, not difficulty.
Nothing to do with difficulty. Only time.
No... that's not my definition. My definition for "CASUAL FRIENDLINESS" is how much a game appeals to casual players. That's literally what it means. The "casual" refers to casual players, and the "friendliness" refers to their attraction to that game. But difficulty is definitely included in that definition, as is a lot of other things. Casual friendliness is the product of a lot of different factors.
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
you're correct of course and I suppose I should have added the other bit I was going to add which goes back to the "this has happened long before we were born".
my degree is in music and I have studied eras of music (as well as Art) for many years. There have always been movements from one status quo to the next. From smaller groups of early adopters to "mainstream". From small groups of early adopters that then become "the popular movement".
So sure, it's not "just" about getting older but about getting older and experiencing change that you just aren't ready for. It's not about "being older" but is about being older and in a different place in the time line where certain trends have moved and become norm.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Its become mmo by popular opinion, everyone wins and depth takes away from action/fun.
They are basically getting further and further away from a traditional mmo and becoming more fps and on the way to becoming mmoangrybirds. It will be popular, since angry birds, plants verse zombies and such are, so who could argue?
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, when you can have a bun and hold a hamburger in your hand? Don't even let me get started on sliders/minis...
I think that is a good summery, and with them both being beef, they should also be called the same thing.
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
Ok. I didn't see the word more. I don't think they would play it more, or play it less.
I don't think the difficulty has anything to do with a casual player playing tetris. Only the time factor, and the timer factor was small to begin with so it's a non-issue.
If the game took hours to get to that hard part, and they removed that time requirement then yes I do believe casual players would play it more, because it takes less time. Not because of any difficulty change, because the difficulty remains the same.
So to clarify, if the only change to tetris was the ability to play the hard parts only, then seeing as the time requirement is so small, it would not change the appeal to casuals.
If the time required to get to the hard parts was a lot longer than it is now (what 15-20 minutes tops now? and this changed to 30+) then it would appeal to casuals more because the time factor is less. Difficulty is irrelevant.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
Nope casual games has always referred to time, how long something takes in the game.
We were talking about casual games.
You changed it to casual friendly.
There is a difference in those terms.
You changed the discussion.
What do you want to talk about casual games, or casual friendly? The terms are a bit different, but both refer only to time, neither refers to difficult.
Casual game - takes a short amount of time to do something
Casual friendly - appeals to people that want something to take a short amount of time.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
Ok. I didn't see the word more. I don't think they would play it more, or play it less.
I don't think the difficulty has anything to do with a casual player playing tetris. Only the time factor, and the timer factor was small to begin with so it's a non-issue.
If the game took hours to get to that hard part, and they removed that time requirement then yes I do believe casual players would play it more, because it takes less time. Not because of any difficulty change, because the difficulty remains the same.
So to clarify, if the only change to tetris was the ability to play the hard parts only, then seeing as the time requirement is so small, it would not change the appeal to casuals.
If the time required to get to the hard parts was a lot longer than it is now (what 15-20 minutes tops now? and this changed to 30+) then it would appeal to casuals more because the time factor is less. Difficulty is irrelevant.
Forget your definition of what a casual game means for a moment, because I'm not sure if you realize it but you use it as an argument in a discussion ABOUT what the definition means. Picture an archetypal casual gamer. A person that plays games casually. A person who is not a hardcore gamer. Do you think they would play the original game of tetris morer than the one that starts out incredibly difficult?
Originally posted by HolophonistThe problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly
That stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
A MASSIVE amount. I could write an essay on it. But I'm low on time so:
Mob grinding is done at your own pace. You set where you go and what to fight, and you do it with friends and other people. It's also more immersive in many ways. The "quests" hold you by the hand and disengage you from the world because you're just following a map, and the quest you just completed makes no lasting change on the world. Neither does mob grinding, but the difference is, with a quest, the game is trying to sell you that you're making a difference, and it just comes off as shitty. 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.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Which, if you're honest about it, is something that we all do. I don't know any sane person that doesn't emphasize good memories and minimizes bad ones. Do you?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
Nope casual games has always referred to time, how long something takes in the game.
We were talking about casual games.
You changed it to casual friendly.
There is a difference in those terms.
You changed the discussion.
What do you want to talk about casual games, or casual friendly? The terms are different.
Casual:
1. relaxed and unconcerned.
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
How again are you not imposing some strict, arbitrary definition on what this term means? You're saying what makes a game casual friendly is the time it takes to get stuff done. How are you claiming this?
You're now making up some controversy about the difference between casual game and casual friendly game. I don't really see the difference but I'm sure you're going to create some complex technicality to save some face. Not only do I not see the difference, I'm pretty sure I've always said casual friendly from the start.
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
Ok. I didn't see the word more. I don't think they would play it more, or play it less.
I don't think the difficulty has anything to do with a casual player playing tetris. Only the time factor, and the timer factor was small to begin with so it's a non-issue.
If the game took hours to get to that hard part, and they removed that time requirement then yes I do believe casual players would play it more, because it takes less time. Not because of any difficulty change, because the difficulty remains the same.
So to clarify, if the only change to tetris was the ability to play the hard parts only, then seeing as the time requirement is so small, it would not change the appeal to casuals.
If the time required to get to the hard parts was a lot longer than it is now (what 15-20 minutes tops now? and this changed to 30+) then it would appeal to casuals more because the time factor is less. Difficulty is irrelevant.
Forget your definition of what a casual game means for a moment, because I'm not sure if you realize it but you use it as an argument in a discussion ABOUT what the definition means. Picture an archetypal casual gamer. A person that plays games casually. A person who is not a hardcore gamer. Do you think they would play the original game of tetris morer than the one that starts out incredibly difficult?
I will forget my definition on a discussion about the definition if you forget your definition.
Regarding tetris, I allready answered that. The original tetris does not take a long time to get to the hard parts, therefore removing something that doesn't take a long time to get to will have a negligible effect.
If you want to discuss that then you have to make the orginal one longer, now the time is not negligable. And in this case yes it will appeal to a casual gamer more.
Casual does not mean not difficult, it means less time. If it takes less time it will appear more. The difficulty does not need to change.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Which, if you're honest about it, is something that we all do. I don't know any sane person that doesn't emphasize good memories and minimizes bad ones. Do you?
I am honest and yes we do all do that. But that's not ALL that's happening. Again, person 2 was dismissing person 1's claims, saying it's ONLY because of rose tinted glasses. I'm saying no... there are actual changes happening in these games. It's not just our interpretation of the past. Our interpretation of the past, our preferences changing over time, our standards changing over time all play a role but ONE of the things that plays a role is the fact that games HAVE changed.
It's not sufficient to say "I'm tired of your complaining. You're just remembering the past fondly." That's not a sufficient argument.
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
Nope casual games has always referred to time, how long something takes in the game.
We were talking about casual games.
You changed it to casual friendly.
There is a difference in those terms.
You changed the discussion.
What do you want to talk about casual games, or casual friendly? The terms are different.
Casual:
1. relaxed and unconcerned.
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
How again are you not imposing some strict, arbitrary definition on what this term means? You're saying what makes a game casual friendly is the time it takes to get stuff done. How are you claiming this?
You're now making up some controversy about the difference between casual game and casual friendly game. I don't really see the difference but I'm sure you're going to create some complex technicality to save some face. Not only do I not see the difference, I'm pretty sure I've always said casual friendly from the start.
How am I imposing a strict defintion.
Relaxed does not mean the game is not difficult, this are games, they are being played as downtime. It may mean the person can relax while playing it. Nothign about the difficulty of the game, nothing about the difficulty of a past-time people are doing in their spare time.
Not regular or permanent - refers to less time.
No I'm not making up some controversy - they refer to time. One refers to the game, the other refers to the people.
Give up the argument that casual means easy. It never has.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Its become mmo by popular opinion, everyone wins and depth takes away from action/fun.
They are basically getting further and further away from a traditional mmo and becoming more fps and on the way to becoming mmoangrybirds. It will be popular, since angry birds, plants verse zombies and such are, so who could argue?
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, when you can have a bun and hold a hamburger in your hand? Don't even let me get started on sliders/minis...
I think that is a good summery, and with them both being beef, they should also be called the same thing.
I prefer Steak to any Burger, give me that Steak and if need be I will go outside and cook it over a real honest campfire I made and lit myself, and I will cut it with my knife and fork, or even my hunting knife, and I will enjoy it ten times more than any burger, maybe even more.... because I cooked it myself and all that.... I'll even spend the time to make homemade Pea Soup on that Campfire, and even some bread toasted over an open flame to go with the meal...
That is the experience I had with MMOs years ago as compared to the "burgers" we had for computer games before that time. We Players were patient, I was over 30 before the first MMOs came out, I was no kid, "we" had been waiting for online gaming for years by that time. When MMOs first came out (BEFORE WoW) they weren't easy to play and THAT is part of what attracted some of us to MMOs in the first place, we didn't want a simple and/or easy gaming experience and you Xthos understand this, I know you do, because of the Steak and Burger analogy you used above. Excellent choice imo.
Now the MMOs that were Steaks are now just burgers, I don't get to cook them or even decide of much pink is left inside... easy and simple, but no where as satisfying. I tried the Burgers, I really have, so many Players said we should like them, but I do not. I find them an inferior food and and inferior eating experience. They are no substitute for the Steak and the experience of Cooking the Steak. Same goes for MMOs very old vs. WoW/WoW clone and later. (yes that is how far back my discontent goes.).
and they wonder why some of us are upset about the MMO genre now. Great Steak Houses have disappeared and all we got is "Slimy Grinders R Us". Yuck.
I want my Steak back. And my Campfire. And my Flint and Steel I lit the campfire with....
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
Ok. I didn't see the word more. I don't think they would play it more, or play it less.
I don't think the difficulty has anything to do with a casual player playing tetris. Only the time factor, and the timer factor was small to begin with so it's a non-issue.
If the game took hours to get to that hard part, and they removed that time requirement then yes I do believe casual players would play it more, because it takes less time. Not because of any difficulty change, because the difficulty remains the same.
So to clarify, if the only change to tetris was the ability to play the hard parts only, then seeing as the time requirement is so small, it would not change the appeal to casuals.
If the time required to get to the hard parts was a lot longer than it is now (what 15-20 minutes tops now? and this changed to 30+) then it would appeal to casuals more because the time factor is less. Difficulty is irrelevant.
Forget your definition of what a casual game means for a moment, because I'm not sure if you realize it but you use it as an argument in a discussion ABOUT what the definition means. Picture an archetypal casual gamer. A person that plays games casually. A person who is not a hardcore gamer. Do you think they would play the original game of tetris morer than the one that starts out incredibly difficult?
I will forget my definition on a discussion about the definition if you forget your definition.
Regarding tetris, I allready answered that. The original tetris does not take a long time to get to the hard parts, therefore removing something that doesn't take a long time to get to will have a negligible effect.
If you want to discuss that then you have to make the orginal one longer, now the time is not negligable. And in this case yes it will appeal to a casual gamer more.
Casual does not mean not difficult, it means less time. If it takes less time it will appear more. The difficulty does not need to change.
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
Comments
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
Absolutely. Casual is defined only as time, not difficulty.
A casual player may not play a tetris that takes him an hour to get to those hard levels. But if it lets him start at those hard levels they would still play.
A game thats likes things easy would not play it. That is not a casual player. That would be a casual and easy going (possibly lazy?) player, not simply a casual player.
A casual player just wants it to take less time. Nothing about difficulty there.
You're conveniently leaving out the word strict because you know that's what I'm getting at. Mine isn't as strict as yours because mine includes yours plus more. I'm not saying my definition isn't different from yours, I'm saying yours is the strict one.
This is all just you still claiming the word casual friendly means something with no reason to back it up. You're just simply asserting that casual friendliness is how long it takes to do something. From what divine entity are you drawing this power to make that claim? There's nothing to support it.
No... that's not my definition. My definition for "CASUAL FRIENDLINESS" is how much a game appeals to casual players. That's literally what it means. The "casual" refers to casual players, and the "friendliness" refers to their attraction to that game. But difficulty is definitely included in that definition, as is a lot of other things. Casual friendliness is the product of a lot of different factors.
Absolutely what? I asked if you thought casual players would play the original version of tetris more than the harder one. If you agree with that then you agree that difficulty has a relationship with how much a casual player would play it.
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
you're correct of course and I suppose I should have added the other bit I was going to add which goes back to the "this has happened long before we were born".
my degree is in music and I have studied eras of music (as well as Art) for many years. There have always been movements from one status quo to the next. From smaller groups of early adopters to "mainstream". From small groups of early adopters that then become "the popular movement".
So sure, it's not "just" about getting older but about getting older and experiencing change that you just aren't ready for. It's not about "being older" but is about being older and in a different place in the time line where certain trends have moved and become norm.
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
Its become mmo by popular opinion, everyone wins and depth takes away from action/fun.
They are basically getting further and further away from a traditional mmo and becoming more fps and on the way to becoming mmoangrybirds. It will be popular, since angry birds, plants verse zombies and such are, so who could argue?
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, when you can have a bun and hold a hamburger in your hand? Don't even let me get started on sliders/minis...
I think that is a good summery, and with them both being beef, they should also be called the same thing.
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
Ok. I didn't see the word more. I don't think they would play it more, or play it less.
I don't think the difficulty has anything to do with a casual player playing tetris. Only the time factor, and the timer factor was small to begin with so it's a non-issue.
If the game took hours to get to that hard part, and they removed that time requirement then yes I do believe casual players would play it more, because it takes less time. Not because of any difficulty change, because the difficulty remains the same.
So to clarify, if the only change to tetris was the ability to play the hard parts only, then seeing as the time requirement is so small, it would not change the appeal to casuals.
If the time required to get to the hard parts was a lot longer than it is now (what 15-20 minutes tops now? and this changed to 30+) then it would appeal to casuals more because the time factor is less. Difficulty is irrelevant.
And both would be correct
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Nope casual games has always referred to time, how long something takes in the game.
We were talking about casual games.
You changed it to casual friendly.
There is a difference in those terms.
You changed the discussion.
What do you want to talk about casual games, or casual friendly? The terms are a bit different, but both refer only to time, neither refers to difficult.
Casual game - takes a short amount of time to do something
Casual friendly - appeals to people that want something to take a short amount of time.
Forget your definition of what a casual game means for a moment, because I'm not sure if you realize it but you use it as an argument in a discussion ABOUT what the definition means. Picture an archetypal casual gamer. A person that plays games casually. A person who is not a hardcore gamer. Do you think they would play the original game of tetris morer than the one that starts out incredibly difficult?
A MASSIVE amount. I could write an essay on it. But I'm low on time so:
Mob grinding is done at your own pace. You set where you go and what to fight, and you do it with friends and other people. It's also more immersive in many ways. The "quests" hold you by the hand and disengage you from the world because you're just following a map, and the quest you just completed makes no lasting change on the world. Neither does mob grinding, but the difference is, with a quest, the game is trying to sell you that you're making a difference, and it just comes off as shitty. 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.
Which, if you're honest about it, is something that we all do. I don't know any sane person that doesn't emphasize good memories and minimizes bad ones. Do you?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Casual:
1. relaxed and unconcerned.
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
How again are you not imposing some strict, arbitrary definition on what this term means? You're saying what makes a game casual friendly is the time it takes to get stuff done. How are you claiming this?
You're now making up some controversy about the difference between casual game and casual friendly game. I don't really see the difference but I'm sure you're going to create some complex technicality to save some face. Not only do I not see the difference, I'm pretty sure I've always said casual friendly from the start.
I will forget my definition on a discussion about the definition if you forget your definition.
Regarding tetris, I allready answered that. The original tetris does not take a long time to get to the hard parts, therefore removing something that doesn't take a long time to get to will have a negligible effect.
If you want to discuss that then you have to make the orginal one longer, now the time is not negligable. And in this case yes it will appeal to a casual gamer more.
Casual does not mean not difficult, it means less time. If it takes less time it will appear more. The difficulty does not need to change.
I am honest and yes we do all do that. But that's not ALL that's happening. Again, person 2 was dismissing person 1's claims, saying it's ONLY because of rose tinted glasses. I'm saying no... there are actual changes happening in these games. It's not just our interpretation of the past. Our interpretation of the past, our preferences changing over time, our standards changing over time all play a role but ONE of the things that plays a role is the fact that games HAVE changed.
It's not sufficient to say "I'm tired of your complaining. You're just remembering the past fondly." That's not a sufficient argument.
How am I imposing a strict defintion.
Relaxed does not mean the game is not difficult, this are games, they are being played as downtime. It may mean the person can relax while playing it. Nothign about the difficulty of the game, nothing about the difficulty of a past-time people are doing in their spare time.
Not regular or permanent - refers to less time.
No I'm not making up some controversy - they refer to time. One refers to the game, the other refers to the people.
Give up the argument that casual means easy. It never has.
I prefer Steak to any Burger, give me that Steak and if need be I will go outside and cook it over a real honest campfire I made and lit myself, and I will cut it with my knife and fork, or even my hunting knife, and I will enjoy it ten times more than any burger, maybe even more.... because I cooked it myself and all that.... I'll even spend the time to make homemade Pea Soup on that Campfire, and even some bread toasted over an open flame to go with the meal...
That is the experience I had with MMOs years ago as compared to the "burgers" we had for computer games before that time. We Players were patient, I was over 30 before the first MMOs came out, I was no kid, "we" had been waiting for online gaming for years by that time. When MMOs first came out (BEFORE WoW) they weren't easy to play and THAT is part of what attracted some of us to MMOs in the first place, we didn't want a simple and/or easy gaming experience and you Xthos understand this, I know you do, because of the Steak and Burger analogy you used above. Excellent choice imo.
Now the MMOs that were Steaks are now just burgers, I don't get to cook them or even decide of much pink is left inside... easy and simple, but no where as satisfying. I tried the Burgers, I really have, so many Players said we should like them, but I do not. I find them an inferior food and and inferior eating experience. They are no substitute for the Steak and the experience of Cooking the Steak. Same goes for MMOs very old vs. WoW/WoW clone and later. (yes that is how far back my discontent goes.).
and they wonder why some of us are upset about the MMO genre now. Great Steak Houses have disappeared and all we got is "Slimy Grinders R Us". Yuck.
I want my Steak back. And my Campfire. And my Flint and Steel I lit the campfire with....
So we've just come back around to the hardcore/casual war (ongoing) again, after all?
That's so ten years ago.
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You just figure out that this forum is flogging dead horses day after day?