surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Honestly one of the major things thats hampered me from buying games for awhile. The notion of casual games actually becoming more maintstream. I look at my copy of Gears, it looks at me. i feel like i lost a part of myself just buying the darn thing (let alone the $70 Collectors Edition) and the game isnt even done yet. oh wait, thats for the pc.
Reason why I call fowl on Gears? its gameplay, it ends too soon. sure there's difficulty levels, but cant we just enjoy a solid game without hassle? Wait i forgot thats too demanding anymore. When i read a few online articles about the PC edition, my heart sank. Why did i waste my time on this? I feel like a used piece of clothing tossed to the side.
Awhile back when I first picked up my 360, I was really looking forward to a few titles. Thats come and gone. There isnt much grabbing me. Unless a certain "Snake" sneaks towards it. Otherwise my radar is getting picked up by a space bounty hunter trying to take down her vicious antagonist one more time. There i admitted it, im gonna buy Metroid Prime 3, not Halo 3, Metroid. Halo can wait, its gonna be there. Its always there.
I learned my lesson with overdoing the price tag. If it has something worthwhile, sure why not. Gears did not answer that question. its a broken and casual shooter. I cant believe im saying this, but i just dont enjoy it anymore. Honestly, this is the first time, I have ever admitted about a game in my library, that i feel like giving up on.
I think this casual virus is hitting harder than ever before. maybe we need an MGS "meme" to infiltrate. Leigh, any ideas?
Reason why I call fowl on Gears? its gameplay, it ends too soon. sure there's difficulty levels, but cant we just enjoy a solid game without hassle? Wait i forgot thats too demanding anymore. When i read a few online articles about the PC edition, my heart sank. Why did i waste my time on this? I feel like a used piece of clothing tossed to the side.
Awhile back when I first picked up my 360, I was really looking forward to a few titles. Thats come and gone. There isnt much grabbing me. Unless a certain "Snake" sneaks towards it. Otherwise my radar is getting picked up by a space bounty hunter trying to take down her vicious antagonist one more time. There i admitted it, im gonna buy Metroid Prime 3, not Halo 3, Metroid. Halo can wait, its gonna be there. Its always there.
I learned my lesson with overdoing the price tag. If it has something worthwhile, sure why not. Gears did not answer that question. its a broken and casual shooter. I cant believe im saying this, but i just dont enjoy it anymore. Honestly, this is the first time, I have ever admitted about a game in my library, that i feel like giving up on.
I think this casual virus is hitting harder than ever before. maybe we need an MGS "meme" to infiltrate. Leigh, any ideas?
I 'm sorry, but this fear of casual gaming is just ridiculous.
It reminds me of when reality TV got big. Most TV actors and directors quickly reacted out of fear and jealousy to the trend, saying that "reality shows take no talent to make" and "it's a fad that will die out". Sounds like the hardcore gamers response to casual gaming, doesn't it?
Well, they were wrong on both counts. Reality shows, like casual games, are great for all audiences when done well, and take talent and creativity to do so.
But the smart actors and directors realised they needed to step up their game and make shows truly worth watching. They saw that reality TV didn't take off because it was so great, but rather because TV execs had been regurgitating the same lame sitcoms and crime dramas for years, and people were sick of it.
Variety and creativity are the key. Not getting caught up in the "But this show/game made us money las tyear, so lets make a sequel/rip off of it this year" mentality that hardcore gaming has been in for waht feels like forever. TV has figured out that creativity makes money, as seen in shows like Heroes, Lost, 24, and Prison Break. You could go the traditional TV format, but you have to have something creative, something to say that hasn't already been said a million times.
I hope game developers will try this, that they will make the equivilant to games as Heroes and Lost were to TV (but not in the form of the Heroes and Lost games, which are bound to suck). Casual games aren't doing well because they are great. They are doing great because your average hardcore game really sucks. If the hardcore gaming industry steps up it's game with creativity and genuine artistic integrity, they'll have nothing to worry about.
It reminds me of when reality TV got big. Most TV actors and directors quickly reacted out of fear and jealousy to the trend, saying that "reality shows take no talent to make" and "it's a fad that will die out". Sounds like the hardcore gamers response to casual gaming, doesn't it?
Well, they were wrong on both counts. Reality shows, like casual games, are great for all audiences when done well, and take talent and creativity to do so.
But the smart actors and directors realised they needed to step up their game and make shows truly worth watching. They saw that reality TV didn't take off because it was so great, but rather because TV execs had been regurgitating the same lame sitcoms and crime dramas for years, and people were sick of it.
Variety and creativity are the key. Not getting caught up in the "But this show/game made us money las tyear, so lets make a sequel/rip off of it this year" mentality that hardcore gaming has been in for waht feels like forever. TV has figured out that creativity makes money, as seen in shows like Heroes, Lost, 24, and Prison Break. You could go the traditional TV format, but you have to have something creative, something to say that hasn't already been said a million times.
I hope game developers will try this, that they will make the equivilant to games as Heroes and Lost were to TV (but not in the form of the Heroes and Lost games, which are bound to suck). Casual games aren't doing well because they are great. They are doing great because your average hardcore game really sucks. If the hardcore gaming industry steps up it's game with creativity and genuine artistic integrity, they'll have nothing to worry about.
@Leigh
I only have an account because everyone I work with has one, I don't go on there much but I'll certainly add you.
I only have an account because everyone I work with has one, I don't go on there much but I'll certainly add you.
Eh, this piece is interesting enough, but it's only really a slight variation on the same tired argument, albeit well-written. That said, as the same general argument seems to pop up every other day, I'll take the lazy route and copy and paste something I wrote in response to it elsewhere. It's all very stupid stuff, probably, so you shouldn't bother reading it.
Question: Did the RPG kill the platformer? Did the Puzzle genre kill the RPG? As silly as the question may seem, it's important.
You see, much in the way that every genre under the sun co-exist peacefully, so too can casual games exist amongst so-called hardcore games without posing the genre a long-term threat. Casual games is a genre just like any other, only it's still relatively new, and so is getting all the more attention for it. It's not killing the industry, and frankly, if the abundance of this sort of game on the Wii and the DS has one's panties in a bunch, they can turn to consoles focused more on the traditional sort of gameplay and stop worrying so damned much about this emerging genre.
Only if this sort of game becomes the norm rather than the exception should it be a concern, and it's not. Casual games just happen to appeal to those who might not otherwise pick up a controller. And hey, if it opens up the possibility that these gamers will eventually move beyond the casual genre to all sorts of different games, then I can only see it as a positive thing that developers are catering to more than just that group of people who think that because they spend tons of time and money playing games, that they're the only people on the planet around who gaming ought to revolve.
By the way, I've never really dug the term "Hardcore", because it's come to have taken on an elitist sort of air to it, rather than being a term one used to use to describe how into gaming he or she is.
Gamers used to be gamers and nothing more, and never seemed to feel the need to differentiate between "classes" of gamer before the days of the PSX. At least not at this sort of paranoid-delusional level.
The PSX opened up gaming to a whole new demographic beyond those who devoted tons of time to the hobby, and I'm guessing when that happened, those long-time gamers got a little bothered by the fact that they were no longer the center of the gaming universe, and bastardized the hardcore label in order to have something to which they could attach themselves that would serve to elevate them beyond those who might only pick up a controller every so often, instead of every waking hour of every day, even if said label is pretty empty and shallow when one considers it.
I'm still as into gaming now as I was back when I started over 25 years ago, but I don't have the time to devote to busting a game wide open that I once did. I play maybe three hours a week if even that, because I don't have the time, and when I do play, I enjoy games that I can make progress in during the little time which I can devote to playing them. So am I not a hardcore gamer due to the circumstances of life and the responsibility that come with them? I call bullshit on that.
The label is flawed, ignorant, and downright elitist, and IMO, needs to be done away with completely.
At any rate, to close this off, casual games have existed since the dawn of gaming. We're only pissing ourselves over them now because the Wii and the DS have successfully brought them to a whole new demographic, ignoring the fact that games catered to long-time gamers continue to hit the market alongside casual games. We just need to take a collective deep breath, count to ten, and relax. It's not all that dire a situation. Not dire at all, in fact.
Question: Did the RPG kill the platformer? Did the Puzzle genre kill the RPG? As silly as the question may seem, it's important.
You see, much in the way that every genre under the sun co-exist peacefully, so too can casual games exist amongst so-called hardcore games without posing the genre a long-term threat. Casual games is a genre just like any other, only it's still relatively new, and so is getting all the more attention for it. It's not killing the industry, and frankly, if the abundance of this sort of game on the Wii and the DS has one's panties in a bunch, they can turn to consoles focused more on the traditional sort of gameplay and stop worrying so damned much about this emerging genre.
Only if this sort of game becomes the norm rather than the exception should it be a concern, and it's not. Casual games just happen to appeal to those who might not otherwise pick up a controller. And hey, if it opens up the possibility that these gamers will eventually move beyond the casual genre to all sorts of different games, then I can only see it as a positive thing that developers are catering to more than just that group of people who think that because they spend tons of time and money playing games, that they're the only people on the planet around who gaming ought to revolve.
By the way, I've never really dug the term "Hardcore", because it's come to have taken on an elitist sort of air to it, rather than being a term one used to use to describe how into gaming he or she is.
Gamers used to be gamers and nothing more, and never seemed to feel the need to differentiate between "classes" of gamer before the days of the PSX. At least not at this sort of paranoid-delusional level.
The PSX opened up gaming to a whole new demographic beyond those who devoted tons of time to the hobby, and I'm guessing when that happened, those long-time gamers got a little bothered by the fact that they were no longer the center of the gaming universe, and bastardized the hardcore label in order to have something to which they could attach themselves that would serve to elevate them beyond those who might only pick up a controller every so often, instead of every waking hour of every day, even if said label is pretty empty and shallow when one considers it.
I'm still as into gaming now as I was back when I started over 25 years ago, but I don't have the time to devote to busting a game wide open that I once did. I play maybe three hours a week if even that, because I don't have the time, and when I do play, I enjoy games that I can make progress in during the little time which I can devote to playing them. So am I not a hardcore gamer due to the circumstances of life and the responsibility that come with them? I call bullshit on that.
The label is flawed, ignorant, and downright elitist, and IMO, needs to be done away with completely.
At any rate, to close this off, casual games have existed since the dawn of gaming. We're only pissing ourselves over them now because the Wii and the DS have successfully brought them to a whole new demographic, ignoring the fact that games catered to long-time gamers continue to hit the market alongside casual games. We just need to take a collective deep breath, count to ten, and relax. It's not all that dire a situation. Not dire at all, in fact.
Hey, at least you don't have the crap post disease like I do. I should've read that before I posted it here. Hell, I should've read it before I posted it elsewhere as well...
I also saw Leigh's MySpace, and yes she's quite the looker. I would've friended, but I'm shy and largely unappealing and impotent and an albino midget and... well, you know.
@KyleGamgee
Or, you know, I could've just written that comment shortly after waking up, thus making it much easier for my mind to be blown. Maybe.
@KyleGamgee
Or, you know, I could've just written that comment shortly after waking up, thus making it much easier for my mind to be blown. Maybe.
How is it that anyone who expresses moderate concern about the future is automatically judged to be "over-reacting", "elitist" or "alarmist"? Unless you have a monetary stake in Nintendo's or PoGo's or [insert one of many recently-formed-casual-game-publishers here]'s future, theres no reason to get all defensive and up in arms because some folks see things differently. Not one of us can be sure as to what the future holds, thus, none of us have any justification for discounting other people's ideas.
That being said, I no longer care for this casual game debate. What happens will happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We'll all keep buying games, deep ones and/or incredibly simplistic ones.
Also, I'd like to second the opinion that Gears of War is a broken shooter.. Epic ftl.
And @Leigh, great post!
That being said, I no longer care for this casual game debate. What happens will happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We'll all keep buying games, deep ones and/or incredibly simplistic ones.
Also, I'd like to second the opinion that Gears of War is a broken shooter.. Epic ftl.
And @Leigh, great post!
Well, maybe it's because there's, y'know, no real reason to be concerned about the future, moderately or not at this point. There's nothing that indicates that casual gaming is going to take over the industry and kill the so-called hardcore section of the market, but people piss and moan about casual games all the same, and frankly, the argument is getting tired.
The discussion always smacks of alarmist dogma, and it has absolutely nothing to do with differing opinions being tough for anyone to swallow. There's nothing to indicate a larger problem, and those who try to find one seem to be reaching pretty deep these days, ignoring the fact that despite the current trend of casual games, games for the so-called hardcore haven't stopped coming, if it's even possible to define what makes a game "hardcore" in the first place, seeing as it's such an ill-defined term, and one that likely differs from gamer to gamer anyway.
I'd rather the discussion be tabled until there's a real, valid reason to start worrying, and even then I'm of the opinion that anything that opens up more people to the hobby is a good thing. And seeing as developers haven't abandoned the so-called hardcore market yet, they're unlikely to do it just because this new genre and the resulting market brings a bit of new cash to their coffers. Casual and Hardcore can go-exist, and they will, just you wait and see.
So great of you to dismiss the counter-points in much the same manner that you claim everyone else dismissed the original point though. Harping on terminology doesn't invalidate the fact that those are simply counter-points to this tired argument, even if you're inclined to think so.
As for none of us knowing the future, and thus being unable to discount other people's ideas, this very topic is meant to, y'know, extrapolate future possibilities based on current trends. So it's a bit silly to shoot down the counter-arguments like you did, seeing as this very discussion is rendered moot when you take that stance, and yet you go on to praise Leigh for making the post. Consistency is your friend.
The discussion always smacks of alarmist dogma, and it has absolutely nothing to do with differing opinions being tough for anyone to swallow. There's nothing to indicate a larger problem, and those who try to find one seem to be reaching pretty deep these days, ignoring the fact that despite the current trend of casual games, games for the so-called hardcore haven't stopped coming, if it's even possible to define what makes a game "hardcore" in the first place, seeing as it's such an ill-defined term, and one that likely differs from gamer to gamer anyway.
I'd rather the discussion be tabled until there's a real, valid reason to start worrying, and even then I'm of the opinion that anything that opens up more people to the hobby is a good thing. And seeing as developers haven't abandoned the so-called hardcore market yet, they're unlikely to do it just because this new genre and the resulting market brings a bit of new cash to their coffers. Casual and Hardcore can go-exist, and they will, just you wait and see.
So great of you to dismiss the counter-points in much the same manner that you claim everyone else dismissed the original point though. Harping on terminology doesn't invalidate the fact that those are simply counter-points to this tired argument, even if you're inclined to think so.
As for none of us knowing the future, and thus being unable to discount other people's ideas, this very topic is meant to, y'know, extrapolate future possibilities based on current trends. So it's a bit silly to shoot down the counter-arguments like you did, seeing as this very discussion is rendered moot when you take that stance, and yet you go on to praise Leigh for making the post. Consistency is your friend.
follow
