“Casual” Is No Way To Label Games, Argues Developer

What needs to happen to the terms "casual" and "hardcore" is simply that they need to be both properly defined and used in the right context.
Both words describe styles of play rather than actual game content, and as such, are used in a completely subjective nature. Any game may be casual or hardcore to the individual playing it since we all play our games differently. One could play online Halo matches in 15-minute intervals throughout their day and call their style of play "casual", while others could play Tetris for hours at a time in an attempt to gain a high leader board ranking and have their style of play be called "hardcore".
Paring these terms up with a game as a method of categorization makes little sense what with individual playing styles potentially varying by great amounts. Remember, people might play bad games a whole hell of a lot and play quality games very little - the quality of the game, or of the player for that matter, really has no bearing on how these terms should be used.

Blah8

I take it that the people who spend over ten hours a day on an online game makes them just 'regular' gamers after all...

Vonhert

@gametr4x: "Make the game you love and the people who enjoy the things you enjoy will be the audience"

Isn't that what Miyamoto does? He comes up with ideas that seem interesting to him. But a lot of people (on Kotaku) are complaining about it.

Leanid

@Slagathorian: Thanks for noticing. Granted these titles have more elements falling in both descriptions and the titles you selected are less so. However as the article notes, it is frustrating for a developer to be limited by such descriptions or worse, being pigeonholed into one and judged on that description rather than the product itself.

@ihotzel: There is a point to what I mean by competitive. I mean there's a lot of games that I like that I would claim are casual - but they do not have a difficulty curve that would require you to consistently practice for hours to get good at it to play even remotely competitively against another person.
I've played a lot of puzzle games, our education systems work towards us having to do puzzles and honestly these games do come to people of average intelligence as not extremely competitive.

There are plenty of games that don't require you to shoot that are extremely competitive. But you don't find them as casual. There are very few casual 'fighting' games, there are very few 'casual' adventure games that are engaging.

One of the older principles of game design is to give a reward for something that is absolutely challenging. So since most people lack the time, they invent two tiers of challenges now.

Also I never complained about one game being better than the other but whining about labels is pointless. It's just because the developers themselves tier and classify themselves as people who develop for a platform and people who develop for 'timewasters'.

I don't think a vast majority of adults have time to game for 6 hours, but when they do they would ilke a challenge. At least people who have been playing for a while do. Despite the fact that as we do age our skills are a bit less sharp.

The real issue is casual gaming is treated like casual sex. There's that implication if you look around. It's not the casualness that needs to be looked into in this case but the experience. Once people look beyond that it's fine. But honestly wasting time and energy (like I myself have done right now) to say label me different because I don't think you're enjoying our products the way we think you should as an experience doesn't sound right either.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet to quote shakespeare but if it stinks you can tell it from a mile away or atleast through word of mouth.

@apoloimagod: I suspect your accusation may have been somewhat acute. It doesn't appear to me that he mentioned anything about all games being equal. I think what he was trying to say was that just because one person, or one segment of people doesn't enjoy a game, it doesn't mean there aren't others out there to whom it is valuable.

Casual seems to have become a bit of a slander against those who create and enjoy any kind of game. I wouldn't want someone to call work for which I have passion casual. I don't think you can put that word in the genre category like you mentioned.

liquidnumb

@Leanid: "Team Fortress 2 has no characters, no in-game history, no plot, and no long-term goals. All you do is join a game and have fun. Does that make TF2 casual?"

I don't look down on the casual game label as some throwaway genre of games. I see them as games that aren't meant to be played for very long and that don't require a set level of skills to play. I would define Peggle and Bust A Move as casual games. I don't know much about TF2, but I do know that online deathmatch and goal-based team deathmatch games like it require the player to have a relatively specialized set of skills to really enjoy it (knowing how to use the keybaord & mouse, game controls, character use, level layout, and so forth). I would recommend Bust A Move to my grandmother who views games as complex, but I would also advise her away from TF2 or a JRPG.

"Are you saying that if a developer adds in a throw-away story like most HD shooters it'll suddenly be a "real" game?"

I'm not saying anything like that. A "real" game? That assumes that you assume I view casual games as less than games. However, most developers aren't going to add elements like story or developed characters to a game meant to be played for rounds of 15 seconds. My intention was more like:

"Peggle and an RPG don't play the same. But neither is a SHMUP and an RPG. Or an FPS and an RPG. They're not casual, they're different genres."

All of those games play differently. To simply say, "A game is a game is a game" makes it seem like every game is the same, regardless of genre, how the player derives enjoyment, and the developer's intent.

"Only when people want to differentiate themselves, usually to make them feel superior... This is my biggest problem with the hardcore/casual divide. It's nothing but PR, yet gamers actually believe it."

I agree, separating things into simply hardcore and casual helps no one. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't games meant for people who plays games with more fervor than others - people who devote a large amount of time not just to the game, but to a community that surrounds a game. Similarly, there are games that are meant to for people to just pick up and play for a very short time. Of course, casual games can have fans who consider themselves hardcore players. Look at Tetris. Basically, I view the casual label as helpful for people who want to play games without needing to memorize a grimoire of game mechanics. Using only game genres doesn't tell about complexity. Instead of calling for its disuse, developers should be using it to draw a new audience and more money

@Ueziel: I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I wasn't saying the game itself was hardcore. My point was you can play it "hardcore" for the first few days, but that doesn't make it a "hardcore" game that just means you spent inordinate amounts of time trying to beat it. The way you play a game doesn't really define it's type. You play certain games certain ways because of it's type (though those "rules" can be "broken" due to personal preference).

And what's wrong with putting myself above them in a sense? I'm the one who appreciates the industry, the "casual" people are just there because it's trendy.

@excel_excel: Still casual. There are a lot of things to unlock in a game like Guitar Hero, but I can't pick up a Zelda game and fight Ganon instantly, or even with 5-6 hours of gameplay.

Eternal_Servant

@SeraphX2: It still has a genre and it should be used. Peggle is a puzzle game and because you just used that example of it being both "hardcore" and "casual" it no longer fits either idea. Thus, those descriptors are useless and incorrect, especially since casual cannot be used to describe an item but the way people play, hence my original point.

Use genres people. Stop trying to reclassify games beyond that. They don't need it and it just creates a strata for gamers to put themselves above what they perceive to be lesser games or gamers.

Agreed 100%. The more you clearly define "casual" and "hardcore", you split the user base into stereotypical and (in my opinion) inaccurate representations of what the consumer actually wants. This leads to poor quality games on both ends.

"Let's make this super hardcore game for the super hardcore crowd. Let's not include anything that can be interpreted as a "mini-game"...Sure, the pacing of the game will be terribly monogonous, but fuck it! Hardcore gamers don't want to do puzzles or stop and think for two seconds."

"Let's make this awesome casual game that housewives will buy. We'll make so much money! All we need to do is 'borrow' some already-popular game mechanic and throw "party" in the title. Sure, it may end up being a fantastic, must-play game for anyone--but housewives is where the money is at...So fuck it!"

@Vysion: way to cherry pick 4 titles that can easily fit right smack in the middle between casual and hardcore.

I can make a list too you know
Are the following titles, casual or hardcore?

Demon's Souls
Metal Gear Solid 4
Mass Effect
Dungeon Crawler

How about the following?
Peggle
Bejeweled
Brick Breaker
Solitaire on PC

The very fact that those appellations are used to describe games nowadays means that those terms are in fact widely used, and here to stay. I have a hard time begrudging a game like imagine: fashion party being labeled casual vs inFAMOUS being labeled hardcore.

And whilst we're at it, how about condemning "core" to the dungeons of corporate doublespeak? E3 08 Nintendo professed they were all about the "core gamer", and has since proceeded to pour out minigame trash, and at E3 09 both Sony and MS tried to sell the "core gamers" the expanded control they perceive in their motion control projects. "Core gamers" are still pissed off that it's getting hard to find a decent dpad.

Joe WaferMouse Jones

It seems to me this guy is just a little too sensitive. First of all, not all games are "of equal worth". Some games are just bad, whether they are casual or hardcore. Now, that set aside, it is just natural for these labels to arise, because these games have inherent differences. Labeling a game "casual" is not an insult, is just a way to understand and describe a game... just as calling a game an FPS, or an RPG, it's just a classification. Nothing else should be read into it.

Now, if he thinks there are people that think less of casual games... well, that's another issue, but there's nothing he can do about that. If some people just don't like those games, well that's the way it is, just as there are some people who don't like hardcore games. There's space for all tastes :-)

"Casual games" (e.g. quick fun pick-up-and-play games which can offer a deeper experience, like Collapse, Bejeweled, etc.) and "shovelware" (e.g. terribly pointless games made for a quick buck, like Birthday Party Bash (Wii), Imagine series, sports games that barely have a negligible change for a whole decade, most new Guitar Hero games, etc.) are two entirely different things. Comparing the two is really, really foolish.

Evan Naji

How about we define the word casual and how it's supposed to be used first before we make anymore discussion.

I can think of several different ways of using casual when involved with gaming and I see people here arguing about just the broad term casual; why don't we delve a little deeper, or just continue and get nowhere.

Omegastrider is playing FFVI

The terms "casual" and "hardcore" have SO many problems.

1) They needlessly divide games into only two categories. Can you imagine dividing movies into "casual" and "hardcore"? There are so many different kinds of movies that appeal to different people.

2) "Casual gamer" is simply another way to say "non-gamer". We could be expanding the world of games and who plays them, but instead we label this new wave of gamers as "casual", effectively demoting them to something less than us, declaring ourselves the "real" gamers. My mom only plays Brain Age and Pac-Man. She plays games. She is a gamer.

3) "Hardcore" is a description for porn. Pikmin is not a hardcore game. I don't care how you spin it.

I've said way too much on this subject in my lifetime, I'm getting exhausted of it. Can we just move past these juvenille terms? Kplzthx.

@WhatTheFrag:

So what, you're saying that a game that isn't competitive isn't engaging? Seems like a strange claim to make. The problem is exactly as has been stated, casual and hardcore aren't mutually exclusive categories. I don't think it makes sense to cast casual games in this super negative light just because they require less time to play. Often I would just as soon pick up a Sam and Max or a Sims 2 rather than yet another brainless cookie-cutter shooter, but what I crave is variety, and a game to show me something I haven't seen before.

I would suggest that there are good games and there are bad games, causal or not and that instead of "whining" about how the games "you" play are better than "everyone else's" just "play" the games you like. Personally I don't have six hours a day to devote to sitting in front of my console shooting the same enemies over and over, so something I can pick up and play any free moment is a bit of a nice change.

@Crash__Man: Using "casually" as an adverb to describe how you played a game is different from using it as an adjective to describe the kind of game you were playing.

I could watch Saving Private Ryan jovially, it wouldn't make it a jovial movie.

GoonerVance

@PutnamBabbas: Actually it's not a good point. Since when can a label be exclusive to one thing.

Noone said you can't have a hardcore and casual gamer, but a game get's its casual or hardcore label as well based on the target audience.

@Ferkner: At the same time you have to look at the essence of the game. GTA wasn't meant to be played casually; you don't really progress or get much out of the game. Just because YOU play it casually doesn't mean you are the definition of what that game is.

Yes, you can be a casual player, but that doesn't mean that is what the game was designed for; it could just mean you like the GTA concept but don't like it so much that you think you need to invest time in it. That doesn't change the essence of the game, just how you perceive it.

GTA wasn't made with the intent of people playing for 15 minutes and just stealing a car and taking it to the beach. There is a story line and missions and a time-investment that needs to be taken into consideration. That is the purpose of the game and there is no way you can play casually and truly experience that.

Now Peggle, on the other hand, yes you can play it for 5 hours straight the first day you get it, but eventually it will fall by the wayside and just be a small little game you play to waste some time. It's still marketed for a casual audience and a casual setting, making it a casual game, in a broad sense.

@Chestnut Bowl: Team Fortress 2 has no characters, no in-game history, no plot, and no long-term goals. All you do is join a game and have fun. Does that make TF2 casual? Are you saying that if a developer adds in a throw-away story like most HD shooters it'll suddenly be a "real" game?

Peggle and an RPG don't play the same. But neither is a SHMUP and an RPG. Or an FPS and an RPG. They're not casual, they're different genres.

"People may not like labels, but they are sometimes used for good reason."

Only when people want to differentiate themselves, usually to make them feel superior. Look at PC elitists. The "hardcore" now are nothing more than HD elitists. I'd have more consideration for the casual label if it wasn't used as marketing tool by the HD consoles. Casual games have been around since the very start of gaming, but SUDDENLY it's a problem when "HD gaming" is out. The companies throwing it around the most? HD console manufacturers and developers with a vested interest in the HD platforms. It's no coincidence. This is my biggest problem with the hardcore/casual divide. It's nothing but PR, yet gamers actually believe it.

Leanid

By the way, this could be the funniest article title ever.

runandgun

he's absolutely right. casual/hardcore need to go.

hmm, where have I heard that before: www.wiiaredeep.tk >>> MissionStatement.

also,
"Casual is a great way to label games, argues website that makes its living off of 'hardcore' elitism"

=\

Crash__Man

@Vysion:

Guitar Hero - Casual
World of Warcraft -Hardcore
The Sims - Never played it but I would guess it narrowly gets hardcore(I would say definitley hardcore when the first one came out compared to other games on the market)
Plants vs. Zombies - Never seen it, so I can't judge.

runandgun

@Vysion: seriously, you make a perfect point.

to add to that,
I "casually" played Halo all the time when I was an undergrad. uh oh, better relabel that franchise, huh? =P

Crash__Man

@Lighter: he term casual does imply in the "net gaming vocabulary" that it is something undesirable.

That's because people fail to realize shovelware is the accepted derisive term for crap, mass-produced casual games.

@excel_excel: technically not, but just look at how they are used..... at the very least, "casual" means a 2nd class game. don't you think?

Crash__Man

@Black-Dog-Howls: Hmm, one of the best way s to sum it up.

@GoonerVance: I looked it up just to be sure you weren't for realz. rofl.

@Monkey Majiks: there are a lot of factors that make games casual this days.
this is how to identify them

the game doesn't have hard+ difficulty.
the game lasts less that 3 hours.
the game doesn't have competitive online play.
the game doesn't use a save file(this doesnt mean rankings).
the game has no end boss/final run.

any or a combination of those factors can label your game a casual game.

Does this guy really think people are going to stop calling shitty, boring, easy games, casual games, just because he bitches about it? I haven't played any games made by Denki, so I can't comment on them personally, but for the most part, companies that solely make "casual" games are just trying to cash in on a fad, and are helping to ruin the video game industry (not in terms of sales figures, but definitely in terms of quality, and isn't that what should really matter to gamers anyway?). So no, I have no sympathy for this guy.

Um, it's not the developers that come up with these terms... It's us. If we've started labeling games as casual, then we're going to continue to do so. Sorry buddy.

@Vysion: Hmm... I would say there is a sense in which some of those games blur the line but you could still separate them out. I would personally put Guitar Hero, The Sims, and Plants vs. Zombies on the casual side. WoW could be considered casual in that some people play it casually as a light entertainment while they are doing something else, maybe sitting in a lecture or something, but the game itself is more of a core game. But yes, you do illustrate a good point, in that not all games can be so easily shoved to one side or the other.

@SeraphX2: That wasn't the point, but I shall use this information to my advantage at the next Grand Prix of Tic Tac Toe at the Helena Convention Center in Kansas.

GoonerVance

@GoonerVance: Maybe, but once you get past being a kid mentally, there is only one way to win TicTacToe...if you have the first choice of placement: Middle. If I can get middle, I can win every time. There is only one way to do it.

But if I start second, I can't win, can only keep you from winning.

@Vysion: test.... EDIT: stupid system. Thought my post never made it in.

@Vysion:
Guitar Hero: Casual - It was designed for the mass market, not a niche group. Everyone wants to be a rockstar, and this will appeal to everyone because they get to play a roll that many people wish they could be. Just because some people pour their every waking hour into it doesn't make it hardcore, just means it's one of the more addicting casual games.

World of Warcraft: Both - It tries to cater to people who are serious about gaming and the people who don't care or have time to play every night. But, it isn't both at the same time, you are either hardcore or you are casual. Mostly.

The Sims: Casual - It isn't a game where you have to play 24/7 and once again, it was made to market to the general masses. This wasn't made to be marketed to people who prefer games like God of War and Halo.

Plants vs. Zombies: - Haven't played it. it seems like your typical "flash schmup" where you just kill waves. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's something you would play for a while and then go back to play for the heck of it.

Basically, casual is anything that is relatively simple in is construction, mostly made to get lots of users from people who don't generally play video games on a regular basis and who can't really handle fast-paced, quick-thinking, fast-finger games. But, since some "flash" games can have those characteristics, it also includes games that you don't usually stay up till 3am playing. This also includes shovelware; the casual masses gravitate towards them.

Hardcore is basically the total opposite of all that. I also think it means that it services only a small niche in the sense of hardcore people don't mind playing Peggle or Sim City, but going the opposite direction isn't as popular.

@excel_excel:I don't mind the term "casual" because I feel EVERY game should be casual. It's a game, it is supposed to be for leisure and fun.

@Vysion: Ah, a trick question. Cute.

Obviously it depends upon the player and how much they're willing to go into the subtleties and nuances of the game, how much time they invest, etc.

However, there are definitely games with more and less depth than others. No matter what way you slice it, World of Warcraft is a bigger, more expansive and more engrossing experience than Peggle, even though Peggle certainly is the ultimate time-waster. A huge role-playing game has more potential within it for hardcore play, and it's certainly intended to be played in such a way

searanox

@gametr4x: Right, it's about the money now. People want to feel secure about what they're investing their money in, so they need to see who the target audience will be and whatnot. This is the way creativity has been stifled in this country in all areas. The same thing has happened to movies and music. It's less about the artist, more about the audience. Of course we promote it by buying all this crap. The credit crisis has exacerbated this problem. Before, credit was so easy if you were a fledgling game maker, movie maker, musician, you could get the money to make your idea. Now the only people that have money are the big guys and they will only invest in a "sure" thing.

GoonerVance

@Vysion: I would say the first two are hardcore because of the degree of difficulty and the amount of time you must put into it (to get good). The Sims is casual...any game where the goal is to do mundane tasks is casual no matter how big the brand or the quantity of tedious gameplay. Plants vs. Zombies, never heard of it...Gamer Card revoked

GoonerVance

@Vysion: all of those are both in their own ways. which is why I consider the acsual and hardcore labels to be bullshit.

laencythe

@excel_excel: I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find a Professional Tic Tac Toe league, doesn't mean the nature of the game isn't simple.

GoonerVance

@Vysion: Plants vs Zombies is super hardcore.

Deathbearer

@excel_excel: I disagree. The notion that "A game is a game is a game" means that Peggle and your average RPG are the same. They are not meant to be played the same way; they don't have the same elements. Many casual games have no characters, no in-game history, no plot, and, most importantly, no long-term goals. People may not like labels, but they are sometimes used for good reason.

@Vysion: don't forget:
-Tetris

MechaTama31

@oby: So GTA IV is a "casual" game since I only play it casually for short periods, right?

Games cannot be classified as "casual" or "hardcore". The way you play can be, though.

Ferkner

@Junpei_Iori: Yes, there are shooting games, sports games, mini games. That is all the labelling that is needed. You don't need "casual" and "hardcore".

Ferkner

For those who do label games casual or hardcore, which would you label the following games:
-Guitar Hero
-World of Warcraft
-The Sims
-Plants vs. Zombies

@RawSteelUT: Casual isn't shovelware, it's just the reviewers who don't like them.
And ironically despite the low scores that they give to casual games, nobody gives a crap about their reviews.

roxaskey

I don't mind the "casual" game tag. but I think it's funny that what are called casual games now, used to be just...games. Looking back at where we came from, how casual arcade and early home games, and it seems silly to suddenly treat games that are similarly "casual" as if they are a whole new genre.

As he said: a game is a game is a game. Doesn't matter if it's "casual" or "hardcore" or whatever lies in between.

Only thing that matters is if it's fun to play.

@Dangeresque: Ewww, you want to click a guys star ?! YOU DEPRAVED PERVERT !

@RawSteelUT:Thank you for proving Dave Thomson's point.

Mushroom_Retainer

@gametr4x: Which is why the "hardcore" moniker is a bad description. A better one, I think, would be "traditional" gamer.

As for the article, I think the community has every right to label games as we see them. And when we can recognized a selection of games, most of them for the Wii, that would appeal to individuals who play video games as a casual, and not typical, past time, then we have every right to label them as such.

The label wouldn't be such an issue if the majority of these games didn't seem so half-assed, but no one can ignore the fact that many of these games have horrendous production values, and often aren't worth their normally "full-price" price tags. And because the Wii holds a majority of the casual market, the Wii is most susceptible to the labeling.

illiniphase4

@RawSteelUT: No. No they are not.

Casual? Shovelware? Aren't those synonyms at this point?

RawSteelUT

Casual is not a derisive label. I'm sure there are plenty of Wii-playing senior citizens out there who'd agree on the moniker. Shovelware and Crappy now, those I can get behind, especially when it comes to Wii and DS titles.

Hardcore

Wait, casual developer? Does that mean he only develops games when he has a little spare time to kill?

TrjnRabbit

The phrase has been coined. It will not be going away. The equivalent would be getting people to stop saying n00b or in fact any other Internet slang word.

@m4rkg: Bingo. Denki Blocks was fantastic, and that little David Beckham game they made was great fun!

its good and bad, the good is that they are usually less indepth, the bad is it lets people generalize and maybe overlook games they might enjoy.

Omniel

@Monkey Majiks: And what if you can make progress with a lot of time in a casual game?

@Dangeresque: Denki make actually fantastic games.

@Psychophan7: They used to call them "Arcade" games.

The term casual does imply in the "net gaming vocabulary" that it is something undesirable. Something opposed to hardcore which is the bees knees. Any attempt to define the term however goes wrong because then a lot of HC games would have to be classified casual and vice versus.

And if Bejeweled is casual compared to Puzzle Quest then Modern Warfare is casual compared to Deus Ex.

Lighter

@mayfaire: The problem is that when people are applying the term "casual" to a game nearly nobody agrees what that means. Does it lack depth? Can it be picked up and played for 5 minutes? Is it something "lesser" gamers tend to play?

I've heard games described as casual for all of those reasons and more. It's a cop-out term generally used to describe something as being inferior.

There's no point calling a game casual, nor is there any point in calling a game hardcore. They're labels we apply because we lack the vocabulary to adequately describe them.

I'll change my opinion on the matter when there's a consensus on what calling a game "casual" actually means.

TrjnRabbit

Well good, I agree the term needs to go. Case in point, there own game Denki Blocks, which could be considered 'causal' and 'kiddy' by those who are close minded fools. It can be played casually as well as hardcore for a few hours. Very good game that.

Gargh- the new commenting system has made everyone write essays! >_<

@PirateSquirrel: Also because hardcore and casual don't form an all-encompassing dichotomy. That's why it isn't a reasonable division.

gametr4x

@Dangeresque the Observer: Or his love/absence of sex.

...Ahem.

@PutnamBabbas: I think there's a difference between the definitions of "hardcore gamer" and "hardcore game". At least the way my friends and I use the terms, a hardcore gamer is someone who plays hardcore games (most of the time), but, more importantly, does put a lot of time and energy into it. So I would class you as a "casual" gamer, even if you play "hardcore" games.

Equally, hardcore gamers sometimes play casual games (and I guess you could have a hardcore gamer who exclusively played casual games, but... I dunno. Does not compute).

@simplyPARTICLE: But doesn't that depend on your definition of a "casual" game? In casual (no pun intended) conversation with my friends, we seem to have a similar view of what constitutes a "casual" game, but here, the internets, ideas seem incredibly varied. I'm less interested in "casual" games, less likely to consider buying them, but that doesn't mean I'm immediately going to play it and think it's crap (or worse, refuse to play it and think it's crap anyway).

Seems a bit of a generalisation to assume that the developers hate the games they make, simply because devlopers = geeks = hardcore gamers.

I think shovelware is a product of wanting to make money fast or occasionally small developers learning the ropes, rather than developers having no interest in what they're doing.

@Ueziel: I have to agree with Dangeresque, at least on the point about the "fake usage of the word casual". It's a term we've come to use (or some gamers have come to use), just as hardcore is. You can equally argue that "hardcore" in gaming doesn't mean what it means in other areas (porn, for example); that doesn't make it any less valid as a term; meaning is contextual.

Whether for better or worse, the terms "hardcore" and "casual", can be used in reference to actual games, as Dangeresque thinks. Sure, you can be a "hardcore" or "casual" player, as you say (and it's a term my friends and I use in the way you've stated), but games can be, too. I'd say there's a stark difference (genre aside) between games like Counterstrike and Cooking Mama (that's probably a comparison that's gonna bite me in the arse).

But then the trouble lies with nuances of meaning. I'm not sure if "casual" necessarily equals "lacking depth and complexity", because you could write a thesis on what is considered "depth" or "complexity" in a video game. I would not, for example, classify Smash Bros as a casual game. It's not as complex as some other fighting games, but does that mean it lacks complexity?

I don't look at a "casual" label as a bad thing. So, if casual games didn't exist then Wii Sports is on the same level as Call of Duty? That doesn't make much sense. A game is a game but that doesn't change the fact there are different TYPES of games. Silly Scots.

Junpei_Iori

@Giroro G66: I love how you read the articles title before posting. Its something I highly recommend.
Although upon further thought perhaps I am being far too harsh and perhaps you are blind, using an experimental monitor that creates braile that you can feel on the screen allowing you to surf the internet. Being experimental it hadn't properly loaded the title. If this is the case I apologise profusely.
I once suffered short term blindness which was inflicted by trying to kill an ant with a magnifying glass. Although this initially won't make sense, the Ant was in fact crawling on my eyeball. As you can tell, this not only meant the Ant was burnt but also the surface of my eye.
Within the one day period this afflicted me I learnt to read brail while also gaining heightened senses.
Although hitting the streets and attempting to fight crime that night while dressed in a tight red spandex body suit with devil horns I quickly realised I had not gained the ability of Marvels Daredevil character. Upon recovering from my temporary blindness I watched the movie Daredevil and although it wasn't good, I had to decide that it wasn't terrible either.
Do you think Matt Murdoch often wishes to have a computer screen which creates bumps so he can surf the internet?

"Make the game you love and people who enjoy the things you enjoy will be the audience".

That's very much the old way of approaching the games industry, and by far the more romantic. Nowadays, it's also a lot more about looking at a target audience, or prefferably a bit of both: selecting to work in a genre you enjoy.

Just catering to people "like me" or that "like what I like" can be very limiting, but I won't deny that it makes the games better, in principle, if you make what you like.

gametr4x

I think "casual" is a fitting title for the games you can just pick up and play for a couple of minutes. However once you start deviding in casual and hardcore gamERs it gets off. People tend to base that on the type of games played then not on the amount of games played.
It's like someone saying "man, I'm such a hardcore moviegoer I go to the movies every 3 days" -"Yeah but you mostly watch comedy movies, so you're more of a casual moviegoer."
Makes no sense.

@Dangeresque: Its the thought that counts.

Derangel

Casual *actually* describes what the game is, casual.

Games not labelled casual usually require alot of time on the users part to make progress, conversely, a casual game can be picked up and played in short blasts with little to no commitment or time.

Its the perfect term for describing exactly what these games are. "Casual"

@Kyuu: That's the point, i am treating them as descriptive titles. It may be semantically awkward now but many words tend to get bent and twisted in their lifetime.

@oby: I'm having trouble understanding your point because you're treating the words "hardcore" and "casual" like titles rather than descriptions of an action.
Of course you can sit and do some hardcore gaming one night, and spend 5 minutes casually playing snake on your mobile phone the next day. Is there an issue with that?

Kyuu

@oby: Hrm. But I thought I could click the star outline on a guy that didn't have a star, and that would basically recommend his comment as a "Comment of the Day" or something... bah, heck if I know. It's 3 am and I already have two comments I want to nominate anyway, maybe it's better this way - _ -

@Dangeresque the Observer: I think the examples of Super Smash and Guitar Hero are prime reasons why "casual" is a dangerous title to go throwing around. Because I'm pretty sure that any serious GH or SSB player would be offended at that label.

And really, what makes SSB any less hardcore than say Halo3? Or any competitive FPS for that matter. In the end, it's about having a gun and firing it at other people. The only real depth depends on the players' own skill and familiarity with the game.

Kyuu

@Kyuu: Well how do you play Zuma or whatever in a "hardcore" way ? The moment there is something more interesting to do, you leave your session for another time. If the game is not slowly eating away at your life and keeping you on the couch/at the desk for hours on end without wanting to do anything else except progress in the story or getting another epic item or nailing some poor victim to a wall it`s not really hardcore gaming now is it.

So if i play Halo, Diablo, Starcraft etc today i`m hardcore, but if tomorrow i have to kill a couple of minutes and slap some balls together(HAH !) in 7 Wonders i`m casual ? I would say that if you spent 100 hours/week playing COD, FF, SF etc and then play Zuma for like 30 minutes you are a "hardcore gamer" playing a "casual game", so this whole players are either casual or hardcore arguments is going the way of the dodo bird
so games CAN be classified as "hardcore" or "casual" without being horribly wrong.

There are loads of 'games' of every kind those that people on a console, on a computer, in the real world with actual sports equipment and so on.
Casual is a far better label than so many others it could've got. I think there's no reason to complain here except that they have to find a reason to complain.
Are most of them making money? Probably. Are most of them still making out 'games' that people with less time can enjoy? 'seems like it'
Unless they want to be labelled something like "not so engaging games but can be played any free moment as it isn't super-competitive but makes you feel it is" then they're good for now.
Stop whining and go make the games. Oh wait I see where you're going - the site mentions they are a digital toy factory. Uhm yeah crappy toys that some buy spoilt kids to make them shut up is what you want to relate to gaming then please no - that's a bad rep.

Casual isn't a useless label from a consumer standpoint, but I can see how it might feel limiting as a developer or publisher. You have some distribution outlets which focus primarily on casual games at low prices and on store shelves your game may be bunched together with "those" games.

Somehow asshole publishers out there are capable of funding horrible bargain bin Wii game shovelware and selling them for $50 a pop. I love the Wii, but it has been milked and raped by horrible 3rd party crap that should have truck nutsacks hung in front of their shelving space. If there's a bad hardcore game, its failure might remain more isolated, but I get the feeling that casual games share the bad wrap as the number of bad games rises to an extreme due to cheap development costs.

So market positioning is important and it's probably easier to be at one of the extremes than it is to be stuck in the middle somewhere unless you have the funding to market yourself out of that hell hole. Look, we're a strategic ultra-conservative cartoon virtual table top card game with hardcore elements, and there's zombies! We're awesome!#$% Our commercial even shows us jumping in a vat of colored plastic balls that are ON FIRE!

Guess you just have to be careful what kind of game you dream up and the price bracket you have in mind, because simple labels are far too convenient for digital distribution and retail to give up. Maybe it will be different some day.

CMay

@oby: I'm not convinced that "being playable in short sessions" is what defines a casual game. I can think of plenty examples of not-so-casual games that has that setup.

Furthermore, I agree with Ueziel that "hardcore" or "casual" has more to do with the player than the game itself. You can play any game casually. And you can play any game hardcore as well. Just gotta have the guts and mindset for it!

Kyuu

@PutnamBabbas: This is absolutely an interesting point. I'm not sure how we got here, really- I can see some of the logic in it, but it's hard not to think that better terminology could have been picked. Then again, humans have a pretty interesting record of unexpected and misleading names- "penis envy" comes to mind. Having taken Psychology, I can tell you it does not mean what it sounds like.

Though that one can mostly be chalked up to Freud's love of controversy.

@Dangeresque the Observer: Well you can't star anyone, you can only promote the comment as far as i understand. But i`m just a peon good lord, do not punish me for my words !

@Lozmaster: Warioware is certainly unique and fun, but I don't see how that makes it hardcore. Then again, I've only ever seen it played, I don't actually own any of them. So consider that a "maybe"- I don't get the impression, from what I've seen, that it's anything but casual, but since I haven't played it, my opinion is somewhat moot.

@Perfec7: No ! Go sit in the corner and think about what you didn't do !

@Ueziel: While i agree with your analysis of the term 'casual', i don't agree that many people use the word to describe a game they don't like.

I think the 'casual game' type is actually a valid derivative term from games being able to be played in a casual fashion hence, valid.

Why call them some weird terms when using "casual", quickly and easily expresses the fact that you can just play a game in short bursts without it completely eclipsing your next 3 hours and the gameplay/following the storyline(usually unexistent) will not punish you for it.

The sooner people accept the fact that the term "casual games" is a gaming stereotype the better off they'll be.

@Dangeresque the Observer:

You haven't found a minigame collection you wouldn't consider casual? I raise you one warioware series [or at least the GBA/GC versions of it.]

Lozmaster

You do realise that denki actually make some decent stuff right? Before you go off calling them shovelware.

m4rkg

@Ueziel: So if gamers don't get to create the terms that will be used for games, who the hell does? Film fanatics created the term "movie" from "moving picture". Net users created "blog" from "weblog" which was probably created from some other word or phrase.

How do you think words get dictionary definitions? Merriam Webster doesn't freaking invent them. People use them, they become commonplace, and thus are added. Don't give me some "created a fake usage" crap.

And Bejeweled vs. Puzzle Quest is the perfect example for precisely the reason that they are both puzzle games. Casual and hardcore are not genres. For the sake of a comparison, it is ideal to make the items being compared as alike as possible except in the way that you are trying to demonstrate. And what I am trying to demonstrate is that depth directly correlates to hardcore versus casual. You can disagree, but don't tell me it's a bad example.

The Casual term speaks for itself frankly. Casual games are designed for a casual playing audience. Would you call Monster Hunter a casual game if someone played it casually? No, there is a steep learning curve and it requires some dedication to get ahead in the game.

Casual games are like pack ramen, cookies, cereal, or PB&J. Easy to make and/or buy and a quick reward.

It isn't like making a steak and deciding on seasonings, cooking style, side dishes, sauces, etc.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy casual games, it's just different and easier.

Black-Dog-Howls

@Dangeresque the Observer: No, you aren't the only one using it. But you're still using it incorrectly. The gaming collective has indeed created a fake usage of the word casual to mean something it doesn't. You want to know who invented the idea of casual games? Gamers. They created the term themselves (incorretly) and then it just fanned out like most memes and other stupidity do. Gamers looked for an easy way to classify something with as few words as possible and, even if it's wrong, they'll go with it.

The word casual has a dictionary description. Gamers need to use it.

And Bejeweled vs Puzzle Quest is a bad example. They're both still puzzle games. One is just made with more depth. This has nothing to do with the fact that a person can still play Bejeweled with a more hardcore mentality than a person playing Puzzle Quest. Having more to do does not equate hardcore, or casual or anything else. It equates to more to do.

@Ueziel: And you are laying down your opinion as though it were iron law. Casual is a word that can have multiple uses, mindblowing as the idea might be. Perhaps genre is not the right word to use, I'll agree there- more like depth. That word, there, is the difference between a casual game and a hardcore game.

Let's take two very similar games- Bejeweled and Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords. Bejeweled is a simple puzzle game, addictive and fun, without a lot of complexity or depth. The concept is swapping gems around to match colors for points. It is a very basic (and very good) game concept with little piled on top of it.

Puzzle Quest is something of a Bejeweled clone. Like Bejeweled, it is a puzzle game with the concept of swapping gems to match colors. But what Puzzle Quest does that makes it different is that there is just more complexity, more depth there. You match colors to cast spells, you cast spells to win fights, you gather items and gold, you go on quests, you progress through a storyline... but at its core, it is Bejeweled. Bejeweled, made hardcore. Given depth and complexity.

And if you think I'm "creating how I think it should be used"... brother, look AROUND! I did not come up with this! There are others here saying the same thing, across the internet, across gaming culture, and have been for years! I am not some man passing judgement, nor some zealot trying to force my opinion on the world. What I am saying is what someone else has already said... and what a large number, if not the majority, of long-time gamers think! The finer points are my own, but I hardly invented the idea of casual and hardcore games!

I call Peggle casual, and I would never insult my dear Peggle. So we are in agreement masses of the internet, casual isn't a bad term its simply a type of classification.
Sadly the area of casualness is going to get the heaviest pollution of crap, since they're simpler and made in greater numbers.
(looks at The Office game) ... Why do you exist!!! *crys*
So instead of complaining about the labels, take a lesson from PopCap.

Well i respectfully disagree with Dave. For my PSP at least i have a pile of games that i label "Casual" but they carry no shame or bad feelings with them, they are just the type of games i consider within the "Casual genre" and i find those quite enjoying to play on the go when i have to actually be aware of my surroundings and can't be glued to the PSP screen.

Casual games ARE casual games and it is in no way a derisive label, his company is either making crap games or the guy has an ego problem which he needs to work on.

What's wrong with playing Final Fantasy or God of War and then switching to some fun casual gaming on the lite side ? Nothing, that's what.

You're more or less looking at whether or not casual defines a game's genre as opposed to the playability and difficulty of the game itself. If a game is simple enough to be able to pick up and play for a quick session then it can be defines as a casual game - if a game is poorly made then yeah, it's going to get the shovelware label.

Casual as a whole isn't neccessarily a bad thing - far from it in fact. if a game is made well and is playable in small doses (for example I can pick up Yoshi's Island Advance for a quick 10 minute gaming session if I'm bored) then it's going to be a casual game - however that then changes when you can state that a game like Yoshi's Island can also be played in a long sitting, depending on time allowance.

Casual isn't really a word I associate with a game as much as I do the type of gamer that plays that game. The only defining I can give a game that would be' casual' is if it allows such casual playability, in which case that isn't something I can say is a bad thing.

Even so, there's a fine line between 'casual-friendly' and 'bad.'

Joshlol

@Dangeresque the Observer: I will always disagree with that because it makes no sense. Casual is a term to describe how something is, not what it is. Casual does not describe what you're doing in the game. It's describing how you play it, which should then be a term given to the player. The game has a proper genre and that's that.

That WoW player is still playing an MMO. Casually. Guitar Hero is a game that allows multiple levels of play, depending on whether or not the person plays it casually or in a competitive nature. It has nothing to do with how the game was made. It's a music game with a good learning curve.

You're applying the term incorrectly by creating how you think it should be used. I also do understand that you're talking about games the developer specifically has made to be played "casually," but they still have genres and they should be used. Besides, stuff like early arcade games or Peggle are games made to be played casually, but they have their own genres and they should be used. They aren't casual games. They are just played that way.

@Ueziel: I'm afraid I must disagree here. Maybe it's just a different way of thinking of what's casual and what's not, but in my mind, a casual game is a game that is based around a simplified concept with a minimal learning curve so as to have immediate appeal to the largest audience possible. I'll agree I overgeneralized a fair bit- many Nintendo games, as you mentioned, are casual, but with a hidden depth to them that satisfies the hardcore (Super Smash, Mario Kart except for Mario Kart Wii, etc.). And certainly, there are Nintendo games it would be ridiculous to call casual, like Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem and others.

Any minigame compilation... I've yet to find one I didn't consider casual. Why exactly is taking a game, and breaking it down into its most basic parts for minimal depth not casual, exactly? Because that's what minigame compilations are- a series of games that on their own don't have anywhere near the polish or depth to be a real product.

I would argue that casual is a genre as well as a way of playing games. You can play casual games in a hardcore fashion- see the Guitar Hero obsessive crowd. You can play hardcore games in a casual fashion- like a WoW player that has played for a year and still has no max level characters. But generally, casual games are designed to be played casually, and hardcore to be played hardcore. The distinction is in who the games are designed for, what player bases's values are the driving principles for design decision. You can walk the line, you can blur the line, but I think it's pretty clear that the line exists, and though it may be hard to tell, games do fall one way or the other.

There is nothing wrong with the word 'casual' when it comes to games. How else do you describe a game that you can pick up and play for 15 minutes before having to get back to work? Really, all Thomson is doing is buying into the stigma that he hopes this ban would do away with.

There is a difference between casual games and core games. A ban on the label isn't going to change what it is. If you want people to stop using the word 'casual' as a derogative term with scorn, then what you have to do is make casual games that aren't complete and utter trash (in popular nomenclature, shovelware).

Casual is not a genre. It is not a type of game. There is no such thing as a "casual game." Whatever game you want to call "casual" has an actual real genre that is actually correct and what it really is. Too many people use the word casual to cover up whatever they don't like or just games with not so much depth, which is ridiculous.

People do not play "casual games." They casually play games of various genres. As in, they play it for leisure whenever they feel like it. This is what the entire industry was created on.

An example is much of what PopCap Games has created. These are called "casual games." This is wrong. Most of them are puzzle games that people like to play for no reason except as a timewaster, hence, casual play. It is not the game that is casual, but the play style in dealing with games.

BAD KOTAKU

too many double posts

@Dangeresque the Observer: I'd STRONGLY disagree with your last statement. Popcap is a great example of a 'casual' gaming developer that creates truly quality titles.

What I don't get is how "casual" got transferred from describing gaming habits to the games themselves. Hell, I don't own a Wii or play popcap games, I play the more "Hardcore" games. But I don't devote hours upon hours in any one day to playing them. Using the terms we have become accustomed to using I would be classed as a "Hardcore" Gamer, Yet truly I am a Casual gamer by dictionary definition. So surely the games should not have the label but the gamers themselves. Because i know a guy who can play a pretty hardcore game of peggle.

PutnamBabbas

@Dangeresque the Observer: Forgoing depth and complexity doesn't mean it's a "casual game," it means it's a bad game of whatever genre it's in. A minigame compilation is still a genre of games.

And yes, a "casual" game can be on par with any blockbuster. But this is because the idea of "casual" games is completely nonsensical and has no actual meaning. A lot of people are applying the term to any game made by Nintendo (which is ridiculous), any minigame compilation (which is still ridiculous) or just anything they don't like.

Casual isn't a genre. It's a way of playing games. A person can play games casually, as in, leisurely, or whenever it strikes their fancy. As in, what the entire industry was created on.

@Derangel: Side note- why the heck can't I star this man? I should have da power....

"Make the games you love"?
this sounds strange to me from what appears to be a casual developer, assuming the staff joined the company, and games development, with a keen interset in videogames (which i would hope for their sake) it would be strange for them to actually enjoy casual games. Very few 'real' gamers i know would have much of an interest in any casual titles, and with the games industry filled with these 'real' gamers its no wonder why casual games are mostly shoddy products. Shovelware right now is a case of the people making games not liking the same games as their audience, perhaps in time as the young casual gamers grow up we will see a new wave of developers creating casual titles with as much care and imagination as we see with the more core titles today.

Looks like Dave Thomson is a....casual! GET IT!

@Dangeresque the Observer: I guess this is exhibit A for the other post I just made... that didn't take long.

So I'm guessing the term 'hardcore' should be vanquished as well.

BattleMagnum

Minor note- little typo in the article title. "Causal" =/= "Casual"

It's not offensive... its just that it is the appropriate term for... well... "casual" games.

I admit though that some people use the term as an attack.

I haven't liked the "casual" and "hardcore" groupings that have been used for games in the past few years. They just don't work because no one can agree on what they mean. And they lead to eye roll inducing arguments.

Well, Dave, stop making casual games, then.

@Giroro G66: It is stated in the article that they indeed are...

@Giroro G66: I've certainly never heard makers of "hardcore" games complain about the term. And honestly... even if it were derisive, is there any reason the hardcore shouldn't be derisive toward casual games? Sure, that can be solid of concept, and pretty good in execution... but "casual" nearly always means forgoing depth and complexity. Means that the game is, in my eyes, not a fully realized idea.

Casual games can be fun, yes. But let's not pretend they're quality-wise on par with a blockbuster like Modern Warfare 2.

The term is only used in a bad way by closed minded fools who hate anything that isn't geared towards them. There is a divide between core games and casual games. Yes, a game is a game, but that is like saying there shouldn't be genre classifications. Games are geared towards different people. Whether these developers like the terms or not, they have a place and they belong. He should ignore the people using it in a bad manner and focus on using it correctly.

Derangel

Says a maker of casual games (I assume)

QQ more.
This guy is just arguing for the sake of his ego.

ssh83