Does the gaming press use "casual" as a synonym to "idiot"?

[thesisko]

So I just finished playing "Limbo". Nifty little game, if a tad too easy and short (took me about 3.5 hours).

Anyway, I looked at some reviews for the game, and Giant Bomb has this to say:


In case it's not clear already, Limbo is a really hard game, probably too hard for casual players to make it through.

Considering the game is extremely pick-up & play friendly due to no learning curve, short length and accessible controls, does Giant Bomb simply mean that gamers unable or unwilling too use their brains need not apply? Has "casual" lost its original meaning and is now simply used as a gentler way to say "idiot"?

What do you guys think?

[deano2099]

Well there's two types of idiots really. People who are just dumb, and people that don't have the gaming shorthand to get certain things.

Limbo is accessible but some of the puzzles require a bit of knowledge of platform genre conventions, and the distinct visual style means the game doesn't really have the chance to teach those conventions to you.

[Splynter]

Addressing your point in a casual manner: yup.

Edit: More seriously, I'd say casual really refers to games targeted at or accessible to people who do not have significant experience with games. It does not necessarily mean that the game is easier. In fact, I argue that it is simply a shift of difficulty away from the sorts of skills that come easily to a gamer. Instead of wrestling with controls, the difficulty lies in some core aspect of the game design.

Look at World of Goo for instance. It's not really that hard of a game, but it does have some challenging points. The difference here is that the challenges are faced without having to worry about super fast twitch reflexes and instead are of an intellectual sort. Angry Birds is another example. Though I find the game incredibly boring, the interaction with it consists of an easily understood finger swipe and taps. The difficulty lies in using basic tools to accomplish a task that is not always as easy as it seems.

[Nalano]

I think it's a vestige of old gaming formats. Let's propose, at this moment, that "casual" and "hardcore" are split in terms of time invested and attention paid.

Fighting games, for instance, require knowledge of (largely undocumented) combo moves ingrained through muscle memory. To be competitive, they need a hardcore mindset, as you have to have the will to figure out the moves and then the time to train them over and over until you get the timing right.

MPFPSs need a finely-honed twitch reflex as well as map knowledge. A good gaming rig and connection, complete with the right peripherals, also lend an edge. Thus, through time invested via learning the maps and the hand-eye coordination from playing years of older FPSs, a hardcore mindset will beat out a casual.

Puzzle games of the old-school variety - I'm talking text games here like Zork - also needed a specific frame of reference to understand and beat. You fought the user interface, and once you mastered that, you fought the idiosyncrasies of the programmers. Against, hardcore beats out casual, who would be frustrated and turned off.

That's not to say the games themselves are hard. Just that you're tangling with the UI more often than not, and as such there is a learning curve involved. As games nowadays get streamlined and more intuitive, that learning curve in terms of the UI is flattened, and thus the divide between hardcore and casual is diminished. As such, to use "casual" as a dismissive epithet, in this case, is somewhat outdated.

[Giaddon]

LIMBO has some pretty mean trial-and-error sections. I can imagine casual players (by definition) getting frustrated at having to "lose" over and over to figure out how to proceed.

[Tei]

Well.. most people seems to think these words are ugly, and don't want then to exist. But I think are usefull.

There are people that work, and have kids, and don't have much time anymore. Can play a game for maybe 20 minutes, and must quit. So.. "of course" want these 20 minutes to be "complete". Maybe even finishing the game with a big "You are a winnar!, you wins everything forever".

Then you have the hardcore. People that can play 40 hours straight to finish a VVVVV or Meat Man, and die 10k times in the process.

Maybe one person can be hardcore in 2010, then have a children, and become a casual in 2011. So It can be about inteligence, is more about dedication and what you expect from games. People that expect to WIN putting in a game 10 minutes, can't realistically get a very hard game with lots of deep. (Except a game like Dungeon Desktop or some similar puzzleish game)

[thesisko]

LIMBO has some pretty mean trial-and-error sections. I can imagine casual players (by definition) getting frustrated at having to "lose" over and over to figure out how to proceed.
So are you saying it's a presentation issue, that "casuals" don't like their gaming avatar to die or do you mean that they are unwilling(or unable) to figure things out?

[thesisko]

There are people that work, and have kids, and don't have much time anymore. Can play a game for maybe 20 minutes, and must quit. So.. "of course" want these 20 minutes to be "complete". Maybe even finishing the game with a big "You are a winnar!, you wins everything forever". Then you have the hardcore. People that can play 40 hours straight to finish a VVVVV or Meat Man, and die 10k times in the process.
Did you read what I wrote? No learning curve, accessible controls, short length, frequent checkpoints. Having little time for gaming won't stop anyone from finishing Limbo.

[Ash_firelord]

I think the OP underestimates the unwritten rules and muscle memory acquired during years of gaming. When the game first came out on the Xbox, my ex-girlfriend tried playing it and she got stuck a lot, both having difficulty with some of the physics puzzles (she did not expect stuff in a video-game to act similarly to the real world) and some of the trickier jumps.

While Limbo has little to no difficulty curve and is very short, I think it's fair to say that it expects the player to be literate in games, and that is the opposite of casual.

So, to answer the starting question in a fashion: casual does not equal stupid, it is more akin to lack of experience / practice.

[thesisko]

So, to answer the starting question in a fashion: casual does not equal stupid, it is more akin to lack of experience / practice.
Okay, going by this definition, can we expect the amount of causal gamers to decrease going forward?

Since everyone and his brother is targeting "casual" gamers since there's so many of them, one would think that they would gain experience and practice after a few of those games have sold a billion copies. Unless those games don't teach them anything...

[Ash_firelord]

Okay, going by this definition, can we expect the amount of causal gamers to decrease going forward?

Since everyone and his brother is targeting "casual" gamers since there's so many of them, one would think that they would gain experience and practice after a few of those games have sold a billion copies. Unless those games don't teach them anything...

You are assuming that casual gamers will devote significant time to gaming in order to become "core". This should not be a given.

I am a casual runner. I run 3-4km almost every day because I enjoy doing it. I will not become a marathon runner if I keep doing this for 5 years, I will just be a guy that is good at running 3-4km. If I want to become a marathon runner, I need to devote more time to running.

[thesisko]

Oh and note that Giant Bomb isn't saying that the game is casual-unfriendly due to lacking a tutorial, he's specifically saying it's "probably too hard for casual players to make it through."

[laneford]

On another note, regardless of length, difficulty, or format, nothing about Limbo's tone, atmosphere, or presentation could ever be described as casual.

It's like telling someone the latest David Lynch film is a casual watch because it's short.

[BobsLawnService]

The distinction between hardcore and casual gamer is completely artificial and I don't think it adds any value to any form of discussion. Since when did gamers become such elitist snobs?

[Ash_firelord]

The distinction between hardcore and casual gamer is completely artificial and I don't think it adds any value to any form of discussion. Since when did gamers become such elitist snobs?

When the internet was invented.

[Splynter]

Oh and note that Giant Bomb isn't saying that the game is casual-unfriendly due to lacking a tutorial, he's specifically saying it's "probably too hard for casual players to make it through."

Alright then. Look at playing an instrument. I know a lot of guys who picked up the guitar in an attempt to score points with women. They can play a few chords, work their ways around some songs and generally sound okay. They play the guitar casually. What they would not be able to do would be to learn, say, a complicated piece written for the classical guitar. This has nothing to do with their innate talents, simply with the amount of effort put into their instruments. You need to practice to learn a skill, and video games share some parallels with music here.

[Nalano]

Okay, going by this definition, can we expect the amount of causal gamers to decrease going forward?

The only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that the gaming market is enlargening far faster than it takes for gamers themselves to become savvy.

[Anthile]

The difference is simply a matter of experience. When I see a waterfall in a video game, I know from experience that there is a cave behind it. When there is a pile of ammo and/or health, I know there is a big fight ahead. There is a lot of this game-y knowledge that is absolutely contra-intuitive and that you only get from playing lots of games.
A hardcore gamer is someone who can solve the Tower of Hanoi in his sleep.


Since when did gamers become such elitist snobs?

Since always?

[thesisko]

The only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that the gaming market is enlargening far faster than it takes for gamers themselves to become savvy.
Oh well, atleast the number of non-casual gamers should increase.

[Nalano]

Oh well, atleast the number of non-casual gamers should increase.

Along with their egos. Dear god, we're so our worst enemy.

[Splynter]

On a somewhat related note, a couple years back my family bought my grandparents a wii. They loved it, and play wii sports and resort all the time now. I was at their house one day, and my granddad was telling me how he spent 6 hours playing it one day with my uncle. I remarked, somewhat flippantly, that my granddad played more games than me (I honestly spend more time now reading about games than I do playing). He was almost offended, and told me immediately that he was not playing video games, he was playing the wii. I left it at that, as I didn't feel like arguing.

I think casual games are frequently marketed as 'not' games. When we as gamers think of video games, we have a wide array of experiences and genres to draw upon. Non-gamers think Mario and shooters, if I may make some sweeping generalizations. To insinuate that their 'casual' experiences share anything in common with our 'hardcore' experiences is almost as insulting to them as it is to us, at least from experiences I've had talking with older members of my family. Anecdotal evidence, so of course it's true.

[Drake Sigar]

Keep in mind that the gaming logic we take for granted is as alien and as unapproachable to an outsider as a Kodiak bear. We've got this whole new line of gaming for people who aren't gamers.

[Nalano]

I think casual games are frequently marketed as 'not' games.

You are not a vampire-like hunchbacked basement-dwelling goblin suffering halitosis and a face devastated by acne, hiding his shame and lack of sexual experience under a Cheetos-stained Nine Inch Nails t-shirt.

You are a cool guy who happens to enjoy our product, always with your many, vibrant friends in a bright, sunny environment! You're socially acceptable!

[BobsLawnService]

It was a rhetorical question, folks.

[Splynter]

You are not a vampire-like hunchbacked basement-dwelling goblin suffering halitosis and a face devastated by acne, hiding his shame and lack of sexual experience under a Cheetos-stained Nine Inch Nails t-shirt.

You are a cool guy who happens to enjoy our product, always with your many, vibrant friends in a bright, sunny environment! You're socially acceptable!

Har har. Yes, obvious statement was obvious. This is exactly how they market them. Always people around, not much actual gameplay being shown. The experiences may be similar, but don't draw attention to the fact. On the other hand, for HARDCORE XXGAMERZXX it's always explosions and power fantasies.

[Nalano]

Har har. Yes, obvious statement was obvious.

Hey, the commercials tend to lay it on thick.

[Splynter]

I was actually referring to the statement of mine that you quoted, no offense meant.

[Nalano]

I was actually referring to the statement of mine that you quoted, no offense meant.

Well, do you remember the old-school commercials for Nintendo, along with the TV and movies of the era trying so damn hard to make it look cool to be a video game nerd?

[Splynter]

Like this one? Or anything from the early 90's era.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XNUTJpA7c&feature=related

Edit: yes, I know it's not Nintendo.

[Nalano]

Like this one? Or anything from the early 90's era.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XNUTJpA7c&feature=related

Edit: yes, I know it's not Nintendo.

Eeeeexactly.