Support NeoGAF

[EatinOlives]

There's no such thing as '(hard)core' and 'casual' games and gamers.

Sure, buddy. Even though that's an actual term that has actual meaning within the industry .

A producer would never spout this hipster BS of "no such thing man! We're all gamers in gaming!" Whether or not you like the shitty discussions the distinction tends to spawn in online gaming forums is a different thing, but to outright pretend like there's no difference in design philosophies is a complete denial of reality.

 

[Angel Whispers]

I wouldn't mind seeing WiiU fail.

I'd love to play great Nintendo IP on Sony & MS consoles.

So, enough of a Nintendo fan to play Nintendo games, but 'too cool' to be seen with the systems which they're made for. Ah, such sentiments... the echoes of many gamer manbabies out there. Wii owners had to buy other consoles to play the likes of Assassin's Creed and Red Dead Redemption.

And I just don't see Nintendo advancing the hardware much.



*Puts asbestos suit on*

D-Pad. Second action button - Those were just for the NES.

4 more action buttons, including shoulder buttons - SNES.

3D stick, Rumble - N64.

C-stick on GameCube was there, but Dual Shock existed before it.

Wiimote and Nunchuk - Wii

GamePad, asymmetric gameplay - Wii U.

Oh, and there's Dual Screens which were on some Game & Watch games, as well as the DS, and 3D without glasses on the 3DS.

......................

Meanwhile...

PS1 just takes shoulder buttons from the SNES and says "A-Ha!! Have 2 more", then Dual Shock takes the N64 controller and says "Have another stick" - There's an argument which says we were just fine without a second stick. Since then, we've had Dual Shock 1, 2, 3 and gamers who couldn't embrace motion controls will happily accept the SAME CONTROLLER for the fourth successive generation... Yeah.

XBox controllers copied the SNES and Dreamcast blueprints, while the XBox 360 controller has a similar layout to that of the GameCube...





But Yeah, Nintendo don't 'advance the hardware much' and the rest do. Putting more powerful bits in your console isn't 'advancing hardware' - PC owners have been doing that for years. Only on NeoGAF... **Sigh and Roll Eyes...URGH.**

 

[Randolph Freelander]

So, enough of a Nintendo fan to play Nintendo games, but 'too cool' to be seen with the systems which they're made for. Ah, such sentiments... the echoes of many gamer manbabies out there. Wii owners had to buy other consoles to play the likes of Assassin's Creed and Red Dead Redemption.

Oh good grief. You're adding more meaning than what was there. Buying multiple pieces of hardware is stupid and a waste of money. That's all the thought was. It's not about manbabies and embarrassment or any of that malarkey. One system... plays everything. Short of that, the less systems, the better.

 

[Lombax]

HAHA Oh Anime...

 

[Angel Whispers]

Sure, buddy. Even though that's an actual term that has actual meaning within the industry .

A producer would never spout this hipster BS of "no such thing man! We're all gamers in gaming!" Whether or not you like the shitty discussions the distinction tends to spawn in online gaming forums is a different thing, but to outright pretend like there's no difference in design philosophies is a complete denial of reality.

The term may exist in the industry, but I don't believe in it. I love how you call it hipster BS, too - They're computer and video games, FFS. I don't believe that gaming should segregate, especially now, when gaming is more popular than ever, and after a time when the community was often antagonised. Gamers would do well to get over themselves and their extreme levels of self-importance. 'Hipster' is your type creating such labels to separate yourselves from the rest, because the wider society has embraced gaming. Yet I'm the 'hipster', because I see the thought of '(hard)core' and 'casual' for the load of crap it is.

Self-proclaimed '(hard)core' gamers would open their damn minds and play as many games and genres, and actually enjoy them. I come across many such types who would slate Wii Fit or Zumba Fitness, for example, as 'casual shovelware' games, when they've never been to a Pilates, yoga, Dance or Zumba class in their life, let alone tried it at length (I do every week, and they're ace. Sure, we look silly sometimes, but it's a lot of fun and we enjoy it lots). I would even go further and suggest that they every bit as, if not more '(hard)core' (in the industry's sense of the word) as Halo and Dark Souls. But yeah, I get that you can't have opinions on so-called 'gaming' sites. They're opinions. Some might get it, if they do - great. If they don't - Whatever. Opinions are not facts.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Sure, buddy. Even though that's an actual term that has actual meaning within the industry .

A producer would never spout this hipster BS of "no such thing man! We're all gamers in gaming!" Whether or not you like the shitty discussions the distinction tends to spawn in online gaming forums is a different thing, but to outright pretend like there's no difference in design philosophies is a complete denial of reality.

No hipster here but I agree with the guy about the terms. Hardcore and casual are relatively new and useless buzzwords to most.

 

[Angel Whispers]

Oh good grief. You're adding more meaning than what was there. Buying multiple pieces of hardware is stupid and a waste of money. That's all the thought was. It's not about manbabies and embarrassment or any of that malarkey. One system... plays everything. Short of that, the less systems, the better.

Well, no. Nobody ever said that you have to buy all of the systems. Exclusivity won't go away any time soon, and so it shouldn't - rather embrace competition than reject it in the gaming industry. Fewer systems is a bad thing. If one fails, the rest would probably feel that they don't have to try as hard, and you're counting on fewer people to bring creativity and innovation to the table. Competition helps that, and customers have more choice, more games, etc. If that means missing out, then that's life - We can't have it all at once, and all of the time.

 

[EatinOlives]

No hipster here but I agree with the guy about the terms. Hardcore and casual are relatively new and useless buzzwords to most.

The term may exist in the industry, but I don't believe in it. I love how you call it hipster BS, too - They're computer and video games, FFS. I don't believe that gaming should segregate, especially now, when gaming is more popular than ever, and after a time when the community was often antagonised. Gamers would do well to get over themselves and their extreme levels of self-importance. 'Hipster' is your type creating such labels to separate yourselves from the rest, because the wider society has embraced gaming. Yet I'm the 'hipster', because I see the thought of '(hard)core' and 'casual' for the load of crap it is.

Self-proclaimed '(hard)core' gamers would open their damn minds and play as many games and genres, and actually enjoy them. I come across many such types who would slate Wii Fit or Zumba Fitness, for example, as 'casual shovelware' games, when they've never been to a Pilates, yoga, Dance or Zumba class in their life, let alone tried it at length (I do every week, and they're ace. Sure, we look silly sometimes, but it's a lot of fun and we enjoy it lots). I would even go further and suggest that they every bit as, if not more '(hard)core' (in the industry's sense of the word) as Halo and Dark Souls. But yeah, I get that you can't have opinions on so-called 'gaming' sites. They're opinions. Some might get it, if they do - great. If they don't - Whatever. Opinions are not facts.

You two are confusing actual design philosophies vs. bullshit gamer crusades du jour.

Approach a game designer, any designer, who doesn't go nerdrage every other day and doesn't frequent gaming forums and he'll tell you the objective difference between a casual game and hardcore one. There is one. A design document of a concept with the addendum "it's a casual game" will be completely different from a different game of the same concept with the addendum "it's a hardcore game".

You "not believing in it" doesn't magically make it not exist. You might not LIKE the type of discussions that people in gaming forums have when talking about these terms. You might not like that it caused a bunch of manchildren to use them as a tool of sweeping generalizations and flaunting their epeens, but that still doesn't make the term not exist. It's outright false to pretend the distinction doesn't exist, and you're only doing it to get on a high horse. You can be above the shitty arguments about "lolz hardcorz vs cazueL", but it certainly isn't by arbitrarily deciding that the terms don't exist. That's just as silly as the shitty arguments you're trying to distance yourself from.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

*Puts asbestos suit on*

hey look at me I'm so controversial I have to point it out myself

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Both the 360 and PS3 have better libraries than the Wii and have been supported for longer. This notion that no one does it better is nonsense.

 

[Angel Whispers]

You two are confusing actual design philosophies vs. bullshit gamer crusades du jour.

Approach a game designer, any designer, who doesn't go nerdrage every other day and doesn't frequent gaming forums and he'll tell you the objective difference between a casual game and hardcore one. There is one. A design document of a concept with the addendum "it's a casual game" will be completely different from a different game of the same concept with the addendum "it's a hardcore game".

You "not believing in it" doesn't magically make it not exist. You might not LIKE the type of discussions that people in gaming forums have when talking about these terms. You might not like that it caused a bunch of manchildren to use them as a tool of sweeping generalizations and flaunting their epeens, but that still doesn't make the term not exist. It's outright false to pretend the distinction doesn't exist, and you're only doing it to get on a high horse. You can be above the shitty arguments about "lolz hardcorz vs cazueL", but it certainly isn't by arbitrarily deciding that the terms don't exist. That's just as silly as the shitty arguments you're trying to distance yourself from.

No, no high horse here. I've played computer and games longer than some people were born. Hell, I can recall being the only guy in school who brought in a games magazine. I enjoy many a game that people call 'casual', as well as those that people call '(hard)core', sometimes the former more than the latter, sometimes the reverse. I have owned and played various consoles, too. I can't see myself in any of those categories. I have no desire to be labelled, either. Why? Because I can identify with all sorts of gamers. If I was a producer, I wouldn't believe in it, either, because I would want anybody, as many people as possible to play and enjoy my games. I wouldn't want to alienate someone, or let him/her feel that "it's not for them" - I would tell them why I think the idea is crap. As I wrote, gaming is for everybody, gamers are gamers and it shouldn't segregate. It's my opinion that the concept is a crock of BS.

 

[RocketDarkness]

IGN:

Finally found that dang video; been looking for it forever.

 

[EatinOlives]

No, no high horse here. I've played computer and games longer than some people were born. Hell, I can recall being the only guy in school who brought in a games magazine. I enjoy many a game that people call 'casual', as well as those that people call '(hard)core', sometimes the former more than the latter, sometimes the reverse. I have owned and played various consoles, too. I can't see myself in any of those categories. I have no desire to be labelled, either. Why? Because I can identify with all sorts of gamers. If I was a producer, I wouldn't believe in it, either, because I would want anybody, as many people as possible to play and enjoy my games. I wouldn't want to alienate someone, or let him/her feel that "it's not for them" - I would tell them why I think the idea is crap. As I wrote, gaming is for everybody, gamers are gamers and it shouldn't segregate. It's my opinion that the concept is a crock of BS.

Do I need to point out the irony here?

Anyways, you're still missing the fundamental point of what I'm saying. You don't have to label yourself anything, and you could probably help the discussion by not being so incredibly defensive.

You need to divorce the difference between the "culture" (using that word extremely loosely here) of hardcore v. casual, and the actual design outline of a hardcore vs. a casual game. We're not talking about social equality here, so I don't understand this "it shouldn't segregate" mindset. You seem to think these terms exist solely as a derogatory fashion, that couldn't be more false. By your logic we should stop "segregating" between game genres too. You know why genres exist, right?

Your outlook on "I'd design a game for everybody" is, incidentally, exactly what is wrong with the industry today. Good game design doesn't come from narrowing creativity to the point of making cookie-cutter clones, but neither is making something trying so desperate to appeal to everyone. Games fail frequently precisely because they try to appeal to all audiences at all times. Games ARE for everyone, but you're completely misguided if that translates to all games appealing to everyone at all times. That's how you get amorphous globs of games that try a hundred different things and end up satisfying nobody.

There's a balance between knowing your intended audience and broadening their horizons. How can you know the horizons when you're pretending they don't exist? You have your personal philosophy of how you approach games, but that's completely different from actually designing them.

 

[pvpness]

Do I need to point out the irony here?

Anyways, you're still missing the fundamental point of what I'm saying. You don't have to label yourself anything, and you could probably help the discussion by not being so incredibly defensive.

You need to divorce the difference between the "culture" (using that word extremely loosely here) of hardcore v. casual, and the actual design outline of a hardcore vs. a casual game. We're not talking about social equality here, so I don't understand this "it shouldn't segregate" mindset. You seem to think these terms exist solely as a derogatory fashion, that couldn't be more false. By your logic we should stop "segregating" between game genres too. You know why genres exist, right?

Your outlook on "I'd design a game for everybody" is, incidentally, exactly what is wrong with the industry today. Good game design doesn't come from narrowing creativity to the point of making cookie-cutter clones, but neither is making something trying so desperate to appeal to everyone. Games fail frequently precisely because they try to appeal to all audiences at all times. Games ARE for everyone, but you're completely misguided if that translates to all games appealing to everyone at all times. That's how you get amorphous globs of games that try a hundred different things and end up satisfying nobody.

There's a balance between knowing your intended audience and broadening their horizons. How can you know the horizons when you're pretending they don't exist? You have your personal philosophy of how you approach games, but that's completely different from actually designing them.

I think he's taking issue with this because stating it like it's a design principle isn't exactly honest. In context, GTA IV was considered "Hardcore" last generation, while in the generation before it, GTA:SA was considered "Casual." He must be taking issue with the idea that developers put the word "Casual game!" or "Hardcore game!" at the top of their design docs as though it's been some fundamental distinction of design (as labelled) since the beginning, when it most certainly has not.

 

[EatinOlives]

I think he's taking issue with this because stating it like it's a design principle isn't exactly honest. In context, GTA IV was considered "Hardcore" last generation, while in the generation before it, GTA:SA was considered "Casual." He must be taking issue with the idea that developers put the word "Casual game!" or "Hardcore game!" at the top of their design docs as though it's been some fundamental distinction of design (as labelled) since the beginning, when it most certainly has not.

Who exactly is considering GTA IV and SA as hardcore and casual respectively? Rockstar?

 

[JaxJag]

I don't think the Wii U needs to light the world on fire to be a success for Nintendo, but the console warriors pining for Nintendo's demise amuses me. They really have no idea how vital they are to the industry. Imagine if Disney stopped making movies.

Yes, it would really hurt the industry. It would almost be like if Atari quit making hardware, can anyone imagine the games industry right now without an Atari console?

 

[Kouriozan]

Yes, it would really hurt the industry. It would almost be like if Atari quit making hardware, can anyone imagine the games industry right now without an Atari console?

Hehe, you're wrong, but if you like a world filled with FPS and no innovation, you'll like a world without Nintendo.

 

[Angel Whispers]

Do I need to point out the irony here?

Anyways, you're still missing the fundamental point of what I'm saying. You don't have to label yourself anything, and you could probably help the discussion by not being so incredibly defensive.

You need to divorce the difference between the "culture" (using that word extremely loosely here) of hardcore v. casual, and the actual design outline of a hardcore vs. a casual game. We're not talking about social equality here, so I don't understand this "it shouldn't segregate" mindset. You seem to think these terms exist solely as a derogatory fashion, that couldn't be more false. By your logic we should stop "segregating" between game genres too. You know why genres exist, right?

Your outlook on "I'd design a game for everybody" is, incidentally, exactly what is wrong with the industry today. Good game design doesn't come from narrowing creativity to the point of making cookie-cutter clones, but neither is making something trying so desperate to appeal to everyone. Games fail frequently precisely because they try to appeal to all audiences at all times. Games ARE for everyone, but you're completely misguided if that translates to all games appealing to everyone at all times. That's how you get amorphous globs of games that try a hundred different things and end up satisfying nobody.

There's a balance between knowing your intended audience and broadening their horizons. How can you know the horizons when you're pretending they don't exist? You have your personal philosophy of how you approach games, but that's completely different from actually designing them.

Well, you can try. That bolded part was part of my background in gaming - the fact that I've played them for so long could suggest that I'm '(hard)core'. Or the fact that I enjoy so-called 'casual' games could suggest that I'm 'casual'. When industry types try to pigeonhole me into one section, it gets ridiculous. That's what I was getting at. I play computer games and that's all there is to it. It really isn't the same as game genres. Also, they are presuming that they know the mindset of all gamers - they don't. Tastes change. A child who gets his first console for his 8th birthday is none of those people the industry is talking about. Lots of children play games. Sometimes they don't play again. Then people get older and while the passion is there, they have other priorities. Or they want different gaming experiences.

I didn't write 'designed for everybody' anywhere; there's a difference in what I wrote. Wanting as many people as possible to be able to play and enjoy games is desirable to a lot of developers. I've finished with this thread, so I'll leave it here. As You Were.

 

[Angel Whispers]

I think he's taking issue with this because stating it like it's a design principle isn't exactly honest.

This, too. Alright. As You Were.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Hehe, you're wrong, but if you like a world filled with FPS and no innovation, you'll like a world without Nintendo.

Exactly. The only game developers who can blaze new trails with groundbreaking new games like Pikmin 3 and New Super Mario Bros 2 is Nintendo. Everyone else is busy making FPS games.

 

[Fess]

I wouldn't mind seeing WiiU fail.

I'd love to play great Nintendo IP on Sony & MS consoles. I think having 3 consoles out there is a bit much, the industry is too fractured. And I just don't see Nintendo advancing the hardware much. Waggle was fun for a while but it did grow stale.

Then again, a lot of people probably want a lower-cost console option. New MS & Sony consoles will probably be released with higher prices than the WiiU (but not $599 high).


*Puts asbestos suit on*

It makes far more sense to have MS IPs on Sony consoles if you just think there are too many consoles. It barely made any sense to own both a 360 and a PS3 this generation since they were so similar, that's how the PS360 acronym came to be. Unless PS4 and X720 sets themselves apart more next generation I won't "double dip". Consolewise I'll stick with WiiU + PS4 until MS shows why I shouldn't just use a PC if I need to play the few first party exclusives they have left.

 

[EatinOlives]

Well, you can try. That bolded part was part of my background in gaming - the fact that I've played them for so long could suggest that I'm '(hard)core'. Or the fact that I enjoy so-called 'casual' games could suggest that I'm 'casual'. When industry types try to pigeonhole me into one section, it gets ridiculous. That's what I was getting at. I play computer games and that's all there is to it. It really isn't the same as game genres. Also, they are presuming that they know the mindset of all gamers - they don't. Tastes change. A child who gets his first console for his 8th birthday is none of those people the industry is talking about. Lots of children play games. Sometimes they don't play again. Then people get older and while the passion is there, they have other priorities. Or they want different gaming experiences.

I didn't write 'designed for everybody' anywhere; there's a difference in what I wrote. Wanting as many people as possible to be able to play and enjoy games is desirable to a lot of developers. I've finished with this thread, so I'll leave it here. As You Were.

And, once again, you fail to grasp at what I'm getting here. You're blinded by your over-defensiveness. If you'd lose that we'd have a better discussion.

Nobody's trying to pidgeonhole you into anything. You need to understand that software as complicated as a video game has to have a set clear direction to succeed. It's the principles of design that they follow that can be the difference between a game that's broken and unfocused and one that's successful.

It's nice and idealistic to say that you want as many people to play your game as possible, but have you ever stopped to consider what that actually entails? Universal appeal is unbelievably hard to achieve, it's not something that you simply will into existence and magically appears in your game. The vast, vast, vast majority of media consumed never even comes close to truly achieving universal appeal. "Universal appeal" isn't something you can write into a design document and expect it to be present in a game. You can make a game's presentation deliberately universal, but that's really about it.

Another thing you need to understand is that I'm not making any judgement about you, so I have no idea why you keep talking about yourself. Great that you've played all these games for all these years and you have such a wide range of tastes. That still speaks nothing about the validity of your statement that there's no such thing as a "hardcore" or "casual" game in a design sense. Gaming enthusiasts such as yourself have absolutely no problem playing a hardcore or casual game at any function, that much is known. Nobody's saying that the existence of this distinction precludes you from having tastes wide enough to enjoy all types of games. I don't even know where you got that idea from.

Again, going back to my very first point, there IS such a thing as a casual and a hardcore game. Game developers design around these frameworks. It says nothing about you as a consumer if you can enjoy all kinds of games. Lose the defensiveness and you can see that the distinctions of these games from design standpoint exist. No need to go into some kind of activist crusade to "end segregation" by pretending these distinctions don't exist.

 

[captmorgan]

Hehe, you're wrong, but if you like a world filled with FPS and no innovation, you'll like a world without Nintendo.

Yup Nintendo mean innovation, I cant wait to play super mario, metroid, zelda, pikman...zzzzzz

 

[NoirVisage]

"To remain at the center of gaming's future. Nintendo needs its new machine to be a big hit."

#youdontsay

AVATAR QUOTE!!

 

[Agent Unknown]

"Hey, Nintendo! This is Rich George at IGN! You know I love you guys but all of us here would be sooooo much more enthusiastic about you in general if you'd just give us a little more ad money and perks now and then! Then you'd truly belong to my heart just like Sony belongs to Mitch Dyer's. But yeah, go Wii U! It must succeed and all that 'cuz we're rooting for you. Wink wink"