Defining casual and "casual"

[sylphaen]

The underlying question I asked myself is how much can a "casual" player really play ?

I mean, all the time we get to hear about how casual players are a huge market but what does "casual" mean ?

At some point, when you casually (intensity wise) play 4-5 games, it's not casual gaming anymore (time-wise, at least).

So do "casuals" just jump mindlessly from game to game or what ? I'm really puzzled about this whole concept. I get that one person who works or has a family or should be studying seriously has a limited amount of time/focus to dedicate to a game could be considered casual but that doesn't leave much room for competition on that public. Winner takes all.

______

Or is "casual" a practical way to rebrand games that forgo the whole stupid time-wasting forceful grinds ?


PS was non-casual in that a session had to last at least an hour to be satisfying (at least for me). And PS was even more time intensive if you wanted to go through the whole epicness of capturing a heavily contested base battle. However, it never felt grindy; even when levelling up in BR.

Otherwise, a lot of it was very casual.

______

I'm just throwing the broad topic out there. What's your opinion, guys ? It's a very broad question about a potentially broad subject (definitely not PS2-only) and I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

It's also a good way to avoid the PS2 related section which feels more finger-intensive than thinking-oriented at the moment.

So chill out, enjoy sharing ideas/opinions and if an argument comes up, do not try to be right at all cost!
:thumbsup:

[maradine]

Take Zynga. They have around 250M players in varying degrees. They run the strata from 5 minutes a week to hours a day. No one would argue that the games are hardcore. But are the players?

The terminology debate is not trivial.

[Gonefshn]

I'd say Casual means people just want to play and don't want to invest a lot of time into learning game mechanics.

Things like Wii sports, angry birds. Thats obviously casual because the gameplay works off ideas you already understand (motion, physics etc.)

A great example is real sports. You can play a "casual" game of football in your backyard. When you do that you strip away rules and mechanics to focus on the simple fun elements. Tackling, the endzone, field goals. In a professional game at the NFL level there are so many more rules and things to understand and be aware of when your playing. It takes a non casual dedicated person to play. Video games work the same. FPS games too.

Now something like CoD to me is also casual as far as shooters go and I'll explain.
In CoD you have very clear and defined objectives and more importantly FEW objectives. It's very very easy to understand the game space and "navigate" within the game. Rounds are short meaning people with little time to play can still enjoy the experience.
But to me its a casual shooter mostly because it strips away larger dynamics and game mechanics and just lets you focus on shooting. It can still be competitive even though it's casual. (like my football example)

Something like BF3 is less casual because there is more to think about while you play and more things to learn. If you want to play you have to dedicate more time into learning the game. That's less casual. Now you have to consider vehicles, different types of weapons being effective against different things. flares. Spotting. Spawn locations. It's a lot more to consider than CoD which removes a lot of choices and just puts you back into the game so you can keep shooting.

I prefer non-casual games and think CoD is boring but I think it's ignorant when people bash it and say it's a "bad" game. When you say bad what you probably mean is, simple. But that doesn't mean its bad. CoD sells the most copies of any shooter because it's so casual and simple. It's genius game design. It's the same reason Wii and iPhone games sell so well.

That's my take/opinion. It's all about accessibility.

[maradine]

I actually contest the assertion that CoD is a simple game. There's a ton of detail in weapon statistics, gadgets, and tools. There's also a fairly long competitive skill curve.

I think you can ding CoD/BF for not being MMO, or for not being persistant, or for not having a metagame. I don't think the absence of those factors, however, would classify either title as simple.

[Windmill]

I actually contest the assertion that CoD is a simple game. There's a ton of detail in weapon statistics, gadgets, and tools. There's also a fairly long competitive skill curve.

I think you can ding CoD/BF for not being MMO, or for not being persistant, or for not having a metagame. I don't think the absence of those factors, however, would classify either title as simple.

Yea, I agree with you. It's just a very well known, mainstream game.

Casual to me is a game that requires very little investment of time and has simplistic rules.

[Rbstr]

I'd contend that "casual" is mostly bullshit when you apply it to a game itself.
It describes a player more than anything.

Just like you can be a casual player of golf, you can be a casual player of BF3 or whatever.
Just like you can be a hardcore player of golf, you can be a hardcore player of BF3.
Doesn't matter if it's Farmville or EVE.

Of course certain games are more rewarding for a hardcore or casual player. EVE is very hard to be competitive in unless you play a lot (which kinda sucks if you like the game but can't spend the big blocks of time, like me). Something that's available in little bits at a time or involves less coordination or skill or studying is more likely to appeal to a casual player. And, obviously casual players won't spend the big bucks on a computer to play the fanciest of games.

Sort of like it's easier to play slow-pitch softball casually compared to baseball.

[Razicator]

Casual to me just means you don't spend too much time worrying about min/maxing your experience. You just jump in with whatever you feel like and play till you get bored.

[maradine]

Probably the best definition I've heard so far.

[Warborn]

Yeah, I wouldn't say casual is about the game, but rather about the attitude the player has to the game. People can play some games casually or more hardcore. Although, that said, some games are not very accommodating to casual players, though, and people find themselves in general unable to have fun unless they get very involved in learning the game.

The important thing to take away is stuff like that earlier post. Some people use "casual" disparagingly. The general idea of casual v. hardcore for a certain section of mongoloids is that any game which isn't really hard and also badly designed such that it is confusing and unintuitive makes the player more of a big-dicked superman to play. Conversely, games which are well-designed and fun from the word "go" are for tiny girls who just can't handle how totally cool and awesome shitty "hardcore" games are.

Read complaints about World of Warcraft or the gamut of contemporary FPS shit (BF3/CoD/etc) to appreciate how pathetic certain fellow gamers are.