I was fortunate to find this thesis, and if you care at all for the video game industry I beseech you to read it. It is not something written by a zealous fan standing on a soapbox. It is not written by a video game analyst, journalist, or developer who simply looks at sales charts and then claims to understand the industry.

It is written by Sean Malstrom, a man who understands the teachings of Clayton M. Christensen--perhaps the most renown business analyst in the world, and the Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

I warn you that this thesis is--as theses are--very long and thought-provoking. It is not for the feint of heart (or the short of time). Repetition is a tool the author uses to instill his points (and it works). That said, if you truly want your eyes opened to see beyond the "casual vs. hardcore" drivel you see on message boards and game journalism websites across the Internet, this is the article to enlighten you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy

The article begins describing birdmen. Birdmen were men who, centuries ago, would watch birds fly and sought to emulate them. Subsequently, they strapped wings to their bodies and flapped their arms as hard as they could. In their minds, it was perfectly logical. Birds fly. Birds have wings. Thus, having wings means you can fly.

Proud of their wing rigs, the birdmen failed time and time again. Their mistake was examining the nature of birds; not the nature of flight. Had they done such (as Daniel Bernoulli did), they would would have realized one must understand the physics of flight to accomplish it, rather than cover their bodies in wings and feathers in imitation of birds.

These birdmen are still with us today--they are the high executives of game companies and esteemed industry analysts.

Nintendo is the bird.

"Nintendo is flying high. Rather than examine the nature of this flight, the birdmen are mesmerized by the feathers. The analysts and executives do not see the concepts of disruption and don’t even understand the Blue Ocean principles (though they think they do). The feathers they see on Nintendo’s ascent are casual games. Therefore, they surmise, if they make casual games then they will be flying high with Nintendo."
- Sean Malstrom, Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy

Sean goes on to point out this is not a new phenomenon: When Grand Theft Auto III came out a few years ago, there was a flood of sandbox-styled, "mature" third-person shooters. Before that, first-person shooters. Then, fighting games that emphasized showy, graphic violence. The most obvious (and well-remembered) failure of birdmen was the mascot platformers in the 16-bit days. They watched Super Mario World in awe, and donned wings in the form of creating a spunky cartoon mascot with gimmicky power-ups and hastily slapped together a game around it. What they did not study was that Mario was not intended to be a mascot--he achieved that status simply as a byproduct of being featured in a tremendously well-executed game that disrupted the industry.

Now, how was the casual fallacy born?

"The game industry was, and still is, distinctively hardcore. They generate their profits from sequels and big blockbuster games. The developers are all hardcore. The publishers are generally hardcore as well.

When a hardcore gamer looks at a hardcore game, he sees sophistication, magnificence, and, most important, art as if it were a mirror image facing him. When a hardcore gamer looks as a casual game, he sees simplicity, non-art, easiness, and, in sum, a retardation of gaming. Hardcore view casual games not as progress in gaming but as games tailor made for gaming retards.

“Retards!?” says a shocked reader. “Surely you can’t say what you mean!” Why not? When a casual gamer picks up the standard dual shock controller, he gets confused. He doesn’t have the patience to wade through these elaborate 3d worlds or memorize fourteen button combinations. While the hardcore call him “stupid”, he retaliates by calling gaming “stupid”.

Anytime you read ‘casual games’ in the news, just replace ‘casual’ with the word ‘retard’ and you will get how it is truly perceived by the industry. “There is a casual gamer boom!” should translate to “There is a retard gamer boom!”. The “EA Casual Games Division” really is translated to “EA Retard Games Division”. “Why are you calling casual gamers retarded!?” thunders one reader. I am not. I am saying that the hardcore industry is the one who thinks this way. ‘Casual’ is just a nice way of saying ‘dumb’ in their eyes.

The reason why hardcore gamers’ hearts sink when a company says they will make the game include ‘casuals’ is because they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game."
- Sean Malstrom, Birdmen and the Casual Fallacy

I bet that strikes home for many reading this, doesn't it?

Sean continues by saying that even though every developer and their cousin makes these "casual" games, the "casual" audience does not buy them... just as they did not buy the mascot platformers, the GTA clones, and other such derivatives. The third-parties, upon seeing their wing rigs crash and fail, throw a fit and blame Nintendo, then proclaim people only buy Nintendo games and that third-parties cannot succeed on a Nintendo platform. Their problem is not Nintendo; it is not the "casual" audience; it is their world-views.

Alas, this blog entry has grown long yet I have touched only a fraction of this thesis. I do hope this has piqued your interest in Sean Malstrom's work, and I hope even more you will understand what he said.

To be honest, even as I conclude this post I'm not sure how I want it to go. Should I leave it at this post and finish with, "Now go read it." Or, should I continue on with future posts on this thesis, each highlighting an important portion of it? I think I'm leaning toward the latter. Any suggestions, Destructoid brethren?