Jump to content
NEurope
Sign in to follow this  
david.dakota

The Casual Conundrum

Recommended Posts

I absolutely loathe labeling games, but while labeling, how is Guitar Hero a casual game? It was a surprising hit that turned into a cultural phenomena and is in fact mainstream, not casual, at least not in the sense that we're "forced" to see things in. I don't see a casual player nailing Dragonforce on Expert. I really don't. We're talking about a genre that always was obscure and niche, but GH managed to make it take off.

Again, hate this oversimplified labeling, and yes, devs and publishers need to direct their audience, but if they see in black and white, it won't do them or us any good, not to mention that to most devs doing something casual activates the part of their brain that says "put 0 effort in doing this"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I absolutely loathe labeling games, but while labeling, how is Guitar Hero a casual game? It was a surprising hit that turned into a cultural phenomena and is in fact mainstream, not casual, at least not in the sense that we're "forced" to see things in. I don't see a casual player nailing Dragonforce on Expert. I really don't. We're talking about a genre that always was obscure and niche, but GH managed to make it take off.

Again, hate this oversimplified labeling, and yes, devs and publishers need to direct their audience, but if they see in black and white, it won't do them or us any good, not to mention that to most devs doing something casual activates the part of their brain that says "put 0 effort in doing this"

 

Guitar Hero is casual. Just because it's a phenomenon doesent mean it isn't. The controls and the objective of the game is dead easy to get grips on.

 

The reason developers make crap casual games is because they're themselves hardcore gamers, so naturally they themselves want to make core games. When they get forced to do casual games, they instead just get it done as soon as possible, and ask for permission to do the game they want.

It's like car manufacturers. Imagine the engineers at Lamborghini being told to make a car to compete with Hyundai Atos. The car they'd develop would be utter crap. They'd make it crap on purpose so noone would buy the car, and the directors of the company would never ever try to tell them anything of the such again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I made an effort in the beginning of this thread but it's so pointless arguing these same things over what label each game comes under. Seriously, the only reason there is any disagreement on stuff like the original topic of this thread is because of disparities between how each individual classes games. Some people consider GH casual, some don't, some consider Babyz Party casual some don't, blah blah blah. The grey area in the definition of each label is the root of the problem, hell the concept of labelling is the root of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guitar Hero is casual. Just because it's a phenomenon doesent mean it isn't. The controls and the objective of the game is dead easy to get grips on.

 

The reason developers make crap casual games is because they're themselves hardcore gamers, so naturally they themselves want to make core games. When they get forced to do casual games, they instead just get it done as soon as possible, and ask for permission to do the game they want.

It's like car manufacturers. Imagine the engineers at Lamborghini being told to make a car to compete with Hyundai Atos. The car they'd develop would be utter crap. They'd make it crap on purpose so noone would buy the car, and the directors of the company would never ever try to tell them anything of the such again.

That's poppycock, first of all:

I never related GH to being a phenomena and casual, the game isn't casual, if I give it to someone who hardly plays games, they can't play it, even if they eventually can, they scratch the surface of the game. It might be somewhat easy to pick up, and it's mainstream, but don't lump it in the same "casual" category as some party games and brain trainings. Individual cases don't matter anyway, hell, labeling doesn't matter, what matters is how devs and publishers tackle it.

 

2nd, that's absolute bull and no excuse, developers need to step up, they're not rebel teenagers, if they have to make a "casual" game because the publisher/market demands it, put some spirit into it, adapt, evolve, show you're really good, it's what Nintendo did and it worked. It's what other 3rd parties did and it also worked. Saying "I don't wanna!" is the type of reason I expect from little kids.

 

And while devs are at the mercy of the publishers or in the case of huge multi-national companies, the big bosses, they're not always forced to make a party game from the get go. It's not like someone's going barging in, let's say, Bethesda and "HEY GAIS MAKE A CASUAL GAME OR YOU'RE ALL FIRED!".

 

What happens is that publishers often force devs to change games, that were already being done sometimes to make it "hardcore", sometimes to make it "casual", you know what, devs, you don't like with your moms allowance anymore, you're in the jungle, hunt or be hunted.

And in the most cases we're seeing now with Wii (and DS at the beggining), it's mainly a gold rush, with devs wanting to tap into a previously untapped market without a single drop of effort and then they complain it doesn't sell or that Nintendo is too good. Boo-oo, did real life beat you son? Where does it hurt? I'm gonna call his mom right now, OK sweetie?

Look at EA, one that just last gen was considered the Lucifer of the videogame market, now also going after the casual mother load, but they're actually doing something, look at TW and Madden 08, 1st gen Wii games, PS2 graphics, but there was effort put in the controls, I don't like NFL and didn't like golf and really liked the games, you could notice they were investing brain and manpower. Sales were pretty good, specially considering sport fans don't usually go for Wii.

Again, I link to this: http://n-europe.com/forum/showpost.php?p=788594&postcount=118

 

If devs want to sell, they need to wake up, the "I'm hardcore, the rest doesn't matter" era is over, very few can afford that luxury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Tapedeck: that's not true. Developers DO sit down and say "now we're going to make a game for the casual market" or "this game's going to be for the absolute hardcore audience". Core and Casual aren't words for "kick ass" and "utter crap", they're descriptions of sofistication so to speak.

 

Meh. Casual is just a word used by some guy sat in his high chair who saw that the wii was/would sell well and thus created a genre of his own.

 

It's stupid to label games as casual or hardcore because every game can be both. Try telling the 5yr old who loves Carnival Games this is only "casual". The kid is trying to beat high scores and is physically playing the game. But no! That's just a casual game. Feck, by that logic Pacman is casual. Purely as it's simple and about scores.

People are consumed by this everlasting argument. It's a buzz word to make long-term gamers feel better about their "elitism".

 

When developers saw the wii was selling amazingly with a pack in game which was simple, most of them shat themselves and thought they should release the lowest of the low in gaming. If Nintendo could do it and all that...

 

Trouble is they were releasing tripe. Nintendo know games yet somehow the industry misconstrued what the Wii was about and now we have a new "genre" of game...Casual. Casual seems to be an easy label to throw at pure guff. But look at the 5 or 95yr old loving Carnival Games. Being elitist has (partially!) ruined gaming. Now it's back to where it should be..catering for all people.

 

And if that means people see FIFA as casual or Guitar Hero as casual....so be it. Great. Whilst it's being argued we'll all just be in the same situation we were in before...with some liking FIFA and some liking PES and some Liking GH and some liking Singstar.

 

And so it goes on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an important point; the difference between shovelware and casual games.

Actually my point was that 'casual' games are a fallacy. There are good games and there are bad games, everything else is a matter of degree.

 

I think tapedeck and I are on the same page here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guitar Hero is casual in the way that it reaches a new audience not usually interested in games. I know people who bought a PS2, their first console ever, just to play it. Same with Wii Sports, Singstar and Buzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's poppycock, first of all:

I never related GH to being a phenomena and casual, the game isn't casual, if I give it to someone who hardly plays games, they can't play it.

Actually yes. At school GH is one of the first examples they give of casual. Even if they do get terrible scores the first time they try, everyone understand at once how to play it, including girls whose only experience of videogames is that they tried their brothers Mario Bros 3 once 15 years ago. I know so, and my friends know so, because they've seen it happen.

 

even if they eventually can, they scratch the surface of the game. It might be somewhat easy to pick up, and it's mainstream, but don't lump it in the same "casual" category as some party games and brain trainings. Individual cases don't matter anyway, hell, labeling doesn't matter, what matters is how devs and publishers tackle it.

Casual isn't a genre like puzzlers or shooters. It's a demography of players, or a level of sophistication. The demography is players who have little or no habit of playing games, and only want to sit down and play a bit on let's say a beforeparty. Guitarhero and Singstar are the ultimate beforepartygames, at least here in Sweden (apart from here at gaming studies, where it's Smash Bros. and DotA)

 

And while devs are at the mercy of the publishers or in the case of huge multi-national companies, the big bosses, they're not always forced to make a party game from the get go. It's not like someone's going barging in, let's say, Bethesda and "HEY GAIS MAKE A CASUAL GAME OR YOU'RE ALL FIRED!".

Errr, actually yes. People do get fired, and studios do get shut down because they don't do what the publisher/owner wants. That's how a majority of casual games come to be. There's a select few of devteams who shout out like "yippee, let's make a really really simple game". Most want to be out there and make more advanced ones that they themselves have allways dreamt of.

 

Look at EA, one that just last gen was considered the Lucifer of the videogame market, now also going after the casual mother load, but they're actually doing something, look at TW and Madden 08, 1st gen Wii games, PS2 graphics, but there was effort put in the controls, I don't like NFL and didn't like golf and really liked the games, you could notice they were investing brain and manpower. Sales were pretty good, specially considering sport fans don't usually go for Wii.

Again, I link to this: http://n-europe.com/forum/showpost.php?p=788594&postcount=118

For the love of god almighty, EA are NOT going after the casuals. I don't know of a single casual game they've made beyond Boogie. The sports games are MAINSTREAM! And I personally have never considered EA a bad developer.

 

If devs want to sell, they need to wake up, the "I'm hardcore, the rest doesn't matter" era is over, very few can afford that luxury.

And that has to change.

You have to go to the university to become a game dev, and it's very bad for the future of the industry to force people to work in games they have no interrest in making for all of their active careers. If it'll continue like that, people will stop learning the craft of making games. It's not like people at games companies earn fortunes either.

As you said, the casual market is a gold rush. The casual gamer buys maybe one, or tops two games a year. As a matter of fact most casual gamers play games that their friends have bought, and thereby don't buy any games at all.

What will you earn most money on?

 

This huge ammount of players whom buy one to two games a year, and have a selection of the thousand of crappy games released within the last four years that still linger the shelves at Wallmart, virtually making the chances of someone buying YOUR game virtually non existant,

or the slightly smaller ammount of players that buy maybe ten games a year, which are nearly all released within the last 4 months, and only pick the ones that get good scores, making attemts to create quality products pay of really nicelly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casual is a broader classification than a genre. There are genre's that are mostly casual though. GH is neither Hardcore or Casual, its a bridge title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the problem is how each one defines casual, you're forcing your (again, useless) labels at others.

Let's take a look at EA:

Boom Blox, MySims,Boogie,SmartyPants,The Simpsons,EA Playground, Sims 2 Castaway and a focus on family play on the next sports titles.

Some more: MoH2,Madden,Tiger Woods,Godfather,FIFA,NFS,SSX.

I'm sorry, but EA is going after EVERYONE. And they're going at it with brains. That's exactly the point.

 

And no, things don't happen as you say, you're putting things in extremes, just like with every job you have to obey orders and do what you must, it varies on the size of the companies, but it's not like the majority of devs is being forced into anything, not in a big scale as you say.

Casual games exist, always have, now people just look at it differently. but just like any other type of game, there's demand, it must be met! Of course some devs don't want to do it, others do, that's even down to personal choice, it's completly moot! Consumers don't need to satisfy the dev's needs, it's the otherway around.

 

Big name devs and big name publishers need to realise that when pushing a certain game, to expect good results, something needs to be put in. They either give it to teams that focus on the task at hand or investing in marketing, things don't work out by themselves.

 

You speak of "casual" games as if it's some plague, as if that means they're bad, no one wants to develop them, everyone who buys them is stupid (I'm obviously exagerating here), and that narrowminded viewpoint is exactly the problem with publishers and devs. They need to take these games seriously.

Oh and some casual (might or might not be casual in yout eyes, but they're something like that) sales from vgchartz, not reliable, but good enough to get some idea:

Wii Sports: 25.23m

Wii Play: 13.26m

Mario Paty: 5.35m

Wii FIt: 5.24m

Mario&Sonic: 4.68

GH3: 2.90

Big Brain Academy: 2.48

Carnival Games: 1.70

 

The list goes on and on. And this is just Wii. And let's not forget that these games keep selling and selling, while the "AAA" hardocre blockbusters sell at launch and disapear. That's it. If they do great, awesome, if not, money down the drain. Casual games with effort put behind it sell, it's a fact. Core games in the same situation also sell, SMG, Mario, Brawl, Metroid (not so much, but better than 2),Zelda, Red Steel, RE4, RE:UC, all these games sold. In EU and USA at least, 3rd party games have been selling more than 1st party games. What can we conclude? 1st party, 3rd party, casual, hardcore games, they all sell. Everything else is just excuses.

 

 

I'm gonna be blunt here, saying that to be a games dev, you need to go to uni and then you don't do the games you want, leading to people giving up, because of that is an incredibly childish view of things. Do you think other jobs are different? Other entertainment sectors? You don't just get a specialized course and suddenly you know it all and you do what you want. You gotta roll in the mud and shit and maybe, just maybe, one day you might do what you want. Make the game you always wanted to make, the music album of your dreams, your dream job, this is a rare thing.

You don't go:

1. Like games

2.Game Design Course

3.???

4.Profit

 

Again, all this I've been saying, is much better articulated in malstrom's articles and alkaline's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream... Casual... it's part perception, part reception... a lot of people might consider a game "this" or "that" but depending on what kind of people end up buying it goes some ways to how it will be labelled by gamers as a whole.

 

Game developers then look at the performance of past titles and decide what route they want to take, often it's whatever sells and is less of a risk of bombing regardless of if it's any good or not because thats whats gonna bring them in the cash; but it's the developers that take a chance every once in a while, create something different, new and unfounded... those are often the games that will be remembered for their brilliance and therefore are fondly welcomed by a more dedicated crowd of gamers.

 

Perception & reception... thats basically what it comes down to Imo. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guitar Hero, like Mario Kart, is a class example of the so called "bridge title". All sorts of different people buy those games but for different reasons. Some people just play MKcasually with mates but then some people are trying to crack the high score rankings. Same thing with GH. They're multi-layered so that they can appeal to the widest demographic possible and thus increase sales.

 

It's no coincidence that those two games have sold shed loads.

 

Again, all this I've been saying, is much better articulated in malstrom's articles and alkaline's post.

 

articulated much better maybe :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

articulated much better maybe :p

 

You really need to let go of your anger. It's not healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casual and Hardcore where both good terms, until now...

 

Now, the PS and XBOX Fanboys have this interpretation:

 

Casual: Sucky, must be Wii Game.

Hardcore: Epic game, can be repetive, stupid, awful and cliché, can't be a Wii Game.

 

You may deny it, but the real interpretation is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casual and Hardcore are both terms that I avoid using as much as possible. Does anyone else find it hugely condesending when people label games to these catagories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Casual and Hardcore are both terms that I avoid using as much as possible. Does anyone else find it hugely condesending when people label games to these catagories?

 

Not really. There are many cases where games border on casual without truly being it (Mariokart). I mean casual games are the gaming worlds equivelant to... maybe a romantic comedy or a straightforward actionmovie (Bad Boys). It's easy to get grips on, it's entertaining the first time you watch it, it's usually on a low budget and it's not really trying to state anything. It's quite simply for everyone.

 

Where would the movie industry be like if only movies like these were made? A lot of people would stop watching. Just like the movie industry, the games industry needs variety. I look forward to there in the future being high quality games aimed mainly at one country. Like EA making a game completely centered about the Brittish national footbalchampionship, or a Swedish beforepartygame with a storymode that's about a teenager named Gustav whose got a crush on his classmate Stina. You get the drill: games that only would work in a certain country. It works with movies, it works with music, it works with books, why not games?

 

Like I said, I want a wider library of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really need to let go of your anger. It's not healthy.

 

There's no anger. I'm only jesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×