It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

StolenName — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:43:52 GMT

Damn, a little disappointed I missed out on this discussion.

It seems that people posting that games are too short are taking that "bang for buck" stance, that they're not getting the huge, epic, long quests that used to happen. However, I don't believe making longer games is the answer at all, especially in regards to the quality of the title. I actually completed CoD4 in less than a day ( 5 hours I think?) and while it was short, I was happy to have completed the game done and dusted. I believe we're seeing developers trying to maximise the enjoyment and compact the creative ideas they're having into more explosive packages, and when you consider that a game will typically stick to one style, such as an FPS, this is a very, very good idea.

If CoD4, BioShock or even FEAR were any longer, I don't believe I'd have bothered even playing them through to completion. Really, when you're wielding a gun, even in Half-Life 2, a 20 hour quest would get boring and repetitive, no matter how many puzzles are thrown your way. In fact, if you tried playing Half-Life 2 from beginning to the end of Episode 2, the chances are many people would have put the game down and said "that's it, the story is great but I'm doing the same damn thing over and over and over". And CoD4 couldn't have been longer, without repeating itself, hell, at best it was still "clear room, move, clear room, move" broken up by variants on the same style.

CoD4 is one of the most value packed games of the year, alongside The Orange Box, if you're into online entertainment and offline. In my opinion, the single-player campaign is perfectly paced and just the right length, while I've already invested more than ten joyous hours playing online.

Personally Darren, I don't believe it's such a bad thing that you don't get to complete games any more because so many games are unsatisfying to complete! I've written slightly more about why I don't even bother completing games anymore over at my website http://graffitigamer.com at http://graffitigamer.com/?p=9

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

Austin Walker — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:27:35 GMT

These days there is a lot of talk about what defines "hardcore" gaming and what makes up "casual gaming." Like Euthyphro of Plato's Socratic dialogues, it's easy to come up with examples of things (Civilization 4 is Hardcore, PopCap games are not) but very hard to reach the core definition - that which needs no more than it is, and has no more than it needs in order to distinguish the term that we are looking for.

There are certainly many, opposing theories about these categories. Often a writer targets something like price or platform as indicators of casual and hardcore, for instance counting games that you buy for 10 dollars or under, or that you download from X-Box Live Arcade as casual. This doesn't hold true, of course, especially in this age of burgeoning digital distribution.

Another common theory is that casual games are those that have no depth, while hardcore games are filled with great replay value due to their seemingly limitless potential for new gameplay experiences (with the original Mario Brothers on one side and Supreme Commander on the other, for instance.) This likewise falls apart when we find a "deep" game that we easily call casual, something like Tetris or Super Smash Brothers. These games seem simple at first, but talk to anyone who plays these games in any competitive sense, and whole levels of technique are revealed that had previously gone unnoticed.

For some time I believed that what separated casual from hardcore was breadth, not depth. After all, even "Rock, Paper, Scissors," perhaps the king of casual, is deep, or at least its world champion would argue it is. What it isn't is broad - there is one thing that the player does, one choice to make - Rock, paper, or scissors. A hardcore game is the opposite, presenting the player with numerous decisions to make in order to complete his objective. Summer critical smash and commercial success Bioshock is a prime example here. Any given situation can be played through in numerous ways. While one person may go through the game using stealth and one-hit kill weapons like the crossbow, another may use traps and environmental attacks, playing defensively.

However, even this definition has to be challenged. If Rock, Paper, Scissors is the king of casual, then Mario Party is the prince. The series is united by a simple design: When a player's turn comes up the computer rolls a die, and then the player moves along a multi-pathed board game styled field a number of spaces equal to the number of the die, with certain spaces affecting the game in a Sorry or Candyland fashion, and other spaces activating a minigame randomly chosen from dozens. None of these minigames are very deep, nor is the board game itself any more complex than your average Milton Bradley product, but the game as a whole is broad. The minigames will have you balancing on logs, rowing boats, shooting balloons, building cabins, and much more. But this game, unlike Bioshock, is broad.

Even if it were deep (as some might argue), I doubt anyone would argue that it was a "hardcore" game. It's one of those very convenient place markers, similar to how we all know that Hamlet is literature while a math textbook is not. However, we still have to deal with those grey areas, areas like Halo and Madden. Most of all, we need a definition that will allow us to classify these things.

I'm willing to say that both Madden and Halo are deep, and that in their own ways they may even be broad. This does not, though, make them hardcore games in my eyes. Where Bioshock is hardcore, Halo (at least 1 and 2) do not seem so to me. Where High Heat Baseball on the PC was a hardcore game, Madden was casual. While both Halo and Madden have lots of popularity, I'm not willing to let popularity alone be the deciding factor (since there are definitely "popular" non-casual games, again, like Bioshock.) What is it about Madden, Halo, Tetris, Mario Party, and Super Smash Brothers that puts them in the casual domain and not the hardcore one?

The same thing that kept my Junior High School friends away from Perfect Dark, despite their love of GoldenEye: Ease of access. Why does PopCap Games make a fortune each year on what could be easily replicated in free flash based games? Ease of access. They let Alpha Moms (as EGMer Shane Betthausen would call them) play quick demos of their games, and due to how easy it is to play these games, to grasp the basics, they make what is essentially point-of-purchase sales. Madden and Halo might be deep, but they aren't difficult to grasp. Once the rules are on the table, they are followed fairly strictly. There is a manner of pick-up-and-play about them, like a simple remote control car. You may have to get used to the controls, but once you have them under your thumb, you're off and driving.

When I was in Grade School my friends would come over for all night GoldenEye sessions. The game was simple (perhaps too simple to hold up well over time) and fun. Even the non-gamers got into it. Perfect Dark couldn't bring them in though, and not just due to the lack of a film license. Weapons like the Laptop Gun and the Farsight changed the basic rules of the game. With the Farsight a player could see, and shoot, through floors and walls, making cover, hiding, and fleeing all obsolete. The Laptop Gun, while not as much of a deal-breaker, was the only object in the multiplayer game that could fire projectiles while not in the hands of an player, instead set up like a turret in any place a player desired. My friends were not stupid people, but they were perplexed by these decisions. "Let's just play Archives," they'd say, suggesting a favorite map on GoldenEye

As time has gone on, ease of access has changed as players, casual and otherwise, have. We got used to having more buttons, pressing more buttons at once, maneuvering multiple analog sticks, and even accepting new rules. Games like Halo: Combat Evolved do just that, evolve what casual gameplay is. Now not only could you throw grenades, but you could switch between them. Bit by bit the casual audience finds new things acceptable. Who knows, in 10 years maybe Bioshock will seem less hardcore - but the definition of what makes something casual will remain the same.

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

Chro — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:23:24 GMT

Mostly in response to StolenName, I agree that a long game isn't worthwhile if you are not motivated to make it all the way to the end, especially if the gameplay is repetitive. Unfortunately, I've discovered over time that my attention span is much longer than the average person, so while I may be entertained by sprawling epics, most of the gaming population will just go pick up another (shorter) game. As a consequence, games get shorter and shorter.

This isn't just a video game phenomenon, though. Almost all entertainment media is shrinking in size, from movies to books to video games. We live in a fast-paced world which is only increasing in speed, and no one has time to wait for a piece of entertainment to 'get interesting'. If the books War and Peace or Fellowship of the Ring came out now, I doubt they would find much interest, because they're too much of a time investment for the average person. As we speed up, our slower pleasures get left behind, which saddens me. While some developers maintain great storytelling despite the decreasing length of games, in many cases 'depth' is the first thing to go when trying to cut corners.

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

joeboy101 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:37:00 GMT

What it seems like we're seeing is games shrinking in scope and length, but increasing in production values, artistic design, and unique gameplay features. Let's be honest, when it comes to size and scope, only two types of games really deliver: MMOGs and games where users can maniuplate and publish content (ala Elder Scrolls, Neverwinter Nights, Sims, etc.). These games provide a self-sustaining experience irrespective of original developer support or participation, with the exception of servers for MMOG's.

This leaves console users out in the cold though, because all of these games with extreme replayability and lasting power are PC games, not console, almost exclusively. So where does the console player go for a game that doesn't end after 10-15 hours?

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

StolenName — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:50:52 GMT

@ Austin: See, I fall into a different camp regarding hardcore gamers. Without writing such an elaborate post (which was well written and quite enjoyable), I'd have to disagree in regards to the more "casual" tag you've provided both titles.

Any game that can be mnastered, I would argue, can be hardcore - or at least to the player playing it. As you mention in regards to rock paper scissors, the world champ would argue it's hardcore. Like poker, which is from the outside a simple game of luck or basic understanding. That is until you find someone that's a master mathematician or has perfected the 'poker' face and can bluff his way through a game, then you've got a hardcore game.

Madden, NBA, NHL, Pro Evo Soccer, FIFA - the many different sports games available I would argue are hardcore titles, especially when you consider how complex the control systems can be. Hell, I'm not bad at playing NHL, it's fun to pick up and play but I won't dare play my little brother because he's mastered nearly every aspect of the game. He's a hardcore player.

Ever tried to play Halo on Legendary single player? I personally, would argue it's impossible to finish! However, those who play Halo day in day out, have learned all it's exploits, are masters of the game may be able to complete it without a death.

In fact, I would argue that BioShock is less hardcore than both Madden and Halo. Sure, it is deep, it has a limitless number of ways to play but in the end, it's easy. It's an extremely easy game to defeat on hard, even without the vita-chambers being present.

To be honest, I believe the status of a "hardcore" game is not necessarily 'what' the game is but instead the kind of following it can receive from players willing to learn the games every weakness, flaws, skills. You know Counter-Strike? I assume you do, it's insanely popular and yet, it's an extremely simple game in premise. You take a gun, you shoot dead the opposition and don't die yourself. In effect, it's pick up and play, hell you can kill anyone with a single shot using the pistol! However, once you get a group of people together who have mastered tactics, make use of voice communication, flanking, flash bangs, you've got a hardcore competition on your hands.

No closing summary.

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

TheHangdMan — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:45:40 GMT

In response to Austin's and StolenName's comments about hardcore vs. casual, I have to agree with SN about the level of mastery being integral to a game's definition of hardcore. If you think GoldenEye was casual, you never played a real hardcore player at that game. There are reasons why my friends never let me play with proxy mines in shooters anymore, and it all stemmed from GoldenEye. Map knowledge + spawn point knowledge + weapon spawn knowledge + proxy mines = you blowing up with every spawn. Hardcore games aren't about having multiple options at your disposal, it's about the complexity of which options are superior to other options in which circumstances. In fact, hardcore games are about knowing what to use and when, not being able to use anything anytime.

Bioshock was one of the most casual FPS's out there. With a little planning ahead of time, the entire game can be beaten with nothing more than the wrench and Electro Bolt. You have plenty of other options at your disposal, but you don't really need anything other than those two. Halo on the other hand, is about knowing when to snipe, when to 'nade, when to gun and when to run. Casual games have a one size fits all mentality whereas hardcore games have specific tools for specific jobs.

I think the biggest difference between hardcore and casual is really strategy. I'd put all the games Austin listed as casual (Madden, Halo, Tetris, Mario Party, and Super Smash Brothers) and put them in the hardcore where they belong, because the easiest way to tell if a game is casual or hardcore is to put a casual gamer and a hardcore gamer against each other. If they're constantly on even footing, its a casual game, if the other player dominates again and again, it's hardcore. N'Gai himself would testify to the fact that Halo multiplayer is anything but casual. In my small group of friends, no one plays Matt at Madden, because it's all he ever plays. No one can stop his offense and his defense steamrolls everybody. Nobody can outgun me at Halo. Jim is still our presiding tetris champ, we still joke about Vince's mark of the stigmata back from the N64 Mario Party one days, and no one can defeat Chuck's Samus in a stock battle, even when money's on the line.

Hardcore games reward hardcore gamers with either superiority over their opponents or superiority over the game, casual games keep the game even for everyone. So far, I've yet to find the ultimate Wii Tennis player (someone immune to tennis elbow perhaps?) A game is only as hardcore as it's playerbase. When you really think about it all games can be hardcore, it's merely a matter of degree.

Still flailing about,

The Hang'd Man

re: It Came From the Comments: Responses to Our Guest Post On the Plight of the 'Hardcasual' Gamer

Austin Walker — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:22:37 GMT

Re: StolenName and HangdMan

Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you both, I've been busy as heck these last few days, and even now must be more brief than I'd like. However, I do want you both to know that I evaluated your positions both before I wrote my original post, and since then. Both of you have written very entertaining and compelling arguments, and I'm glad to be having this conversation with two well spoken indivduals.

Anyway, I keep coming back to the same problem with the "hardcore is any game that can be mastered," argument. The core of the problem is this: With the exception of games that are purely and only games of chance, there is probably an argument that every game is able to be mastered, or at least that there will be divisions between tiers of skill among players. Even among games of pure chance - dice throwing, slot machines, whatever - while a player's skill is not tested, his ability to know odds, and not give in to superstition is. The guy who refuses to ever put his money on a red number in roulette wheel because he was once a failed matador (write your own narrative) is a worse roulette player than the woman who understands that the game is one of chance alone, and that there are equal black and red spaces on the wheel. Of course, they're both fools for playing such a skillless, highstakes game in the first place. ;)

But let's look at non-chance based videogames. What would you propose is a non-masterable game? Let's look at some things you guys suggested. First, Hangd, you reference Wii Tennis at the end. My friend Art is an absolute monster at the game. There is in fact a return swing that is as far as we can tell, unbeatable. He dominates the game against dozens of others, strangers who have developped their own talents included. He also consistently bowls 280+ in wiisports bowling. He is a master of the homerun derby in Wiisports baseball. Similarily, in a group of gamers my friend AJ simply is better at the cowracing minigame in Wiiplay.

If these aren't casual games then I don't know what is. Wiisports is a system pack-in, and Wiiplay is one of the hottest selling titles on the platform. There is no disputing the fact that people who are not hardcore gamers play these games. I understand that we're defining hardcore games, and not hardcore gamers here, but their is still some validity to this argument.

You guys both also call sports games hardcore. My father is 45 now. He used to play Tecmo Superbowl with me as a kid. Now he plays madden. He doesn't know what a hit-stick is, but he can successfully play the game. The game, like any other skill based game can be mastered, but he hasn't done it and yet plays the game succesfully. He is currently ending his third season of franchise mode with two consecutive superbowl titles in Madden 08, on All-Pro difficulty. Do I think that I could beat him? Probably. Do I think that a "master" player could beat him? Certainly. Does this make his few-hours-a-week game experience, with success, hardcore? I just don't think it does.

CS is a very interesting example. It exists as a game that is entirely online. As such, the game's difficulty is directly related to the skill of who you are playing against, and (anecdotally) from what I can tell the playerbase is entirely hardcore at this point. They know the maps the way they know their homes, and know the differences between pistol retorts from guns that most other people couldn't' even tell apart by looks. The game environment has forced the game to become hardcore, with the added weight of severely intricate game design.

These examples drawn, it seems we're left with this argument:

Definitions - Casual = Not(Hardcore)

P1. All games that can be mastered are hardcore games. (From your posts)

---

a. All skill based games can be mastered. (From my post)

b. All skillbased videogames are hardcore.

----

P2. Wiisports is a casual game (from your posts, with my support)

3. Wiisports is a skillbased game (from my post)

4. Wiisports is a hardcore game. (from b)

Contradiction

We can't have it both ways.

Either, we can't have binary opposition of hardcore and casual (where one is equal to not-the-other) or we have to redefine hardcore. That's what I attempted to do in my initial post. This is the line of logic that led me to originally change my mind from depth/breadth based definitions of hardcore, and towards ease of access. My father can pick up his controller and break a tackle with LT for a 25 yard run without much practice. My mother, who hasn't played a videogame since digdug, loved wiisports tennis - despite the fact that Art could cream her without a second thought. Either we have no casual games at all, or hardcore simply can't mean what all three of us originally thought it meant - from mastery to something else. In my mind, the one things that all of these games we'd call casual (even if we dispute some of them, the ones we could agree upon) have in them is ease of access.

Thoughts? N'gai, you have anything here? Are we flailing about in the dark?

-Austin Walker

allcritique.blogspot.com

a_walk@mac.com