Ever notice how often this image crops up when you talk about hardcore gamers?
Now, the thing that get's me about this whole debate is that I really don't see much difference in these two allegedly opposing factions. Let's take the standard stereotypes.
For the hardcore gamer you have the idea that this is someone who takes games as serious business. They spend a lot of time on money on games and the attendant peripherals. Be that hardware, software, merchandising or whatever. They don't even really play for fun so much, treating the hobby almost like a second job.
For the casual gamer you have this idea of the Farmville drone. They spend a lot of time and money to click on things, or other attendant peripherals of their shitty facebook games such as clicking more things or clicking things at an increased rate. They don't even really play for fun so much, treating the hobby almost like a needy child that requires frequent attention.
Anyone else remember when we used to play games for fun?
To call this area of discussion a debate is however somewhat disingenuous. On the one side we have the vocal minority of the hardcore gamers who seem to be offended at a type of game they simply don't understand. And on the opposing side you have approximately no one. Because they already finished playing that last game of Bejewelled and have gone off to do something else. Seriously, has anyone EVER seen a post by anyone lamenting how the rise of graphics intensive shooters is ruining their ability to match 3 of something? I doubt it.
So what is it that the hardcore doesn't get about these casual games that has them all in a lather? Well, firstly there is I suppose the fact that some of them are not very good games. Yes, the social media gaming scene is an overcrowded mess of reskinned clones and rip offs of other more successful games. Constantly recycling the few proven ideas without the slightest trace of orinality or innovation.
So yeah, not sure what they're complaining about there.
Then there's the so called lack of skill. The whole point after all is that literally anybody can pick up the game and play it. And really, how is this a bad thing? I mean, games are meant to played, right? The thing is that actually a lot of games can be picked by any random bodrick and played. Just not necessarily played WELL. It's here I think that the real issue that gets to those who feel this is a worthwhile topic to argue about. The fact that if just anyone can play games means that being able to play games to whatever level of skill doesn't actually make you a special cupcake and that maybe you've wasted your life.
See, the thing is I don't quite get this either. I don't see why being good at video games should have this weird negative subtext. If you can play Halo Wars on Legendary then you have my utmost respect. If you've ever actually beaten Bloody Jitterbug on Deathsmiles then I will probably worship you as a god. At least once you've proved it by unlocking the achievement on my profile.
Seriously. What. The. Fuck?
Which isn't to say that if video games are the only thing you're good at and the only method you have of establishing any sense of self worth you probably have some issues that need to be addressed. But equally there isn't anything inherently wrong with not being very good at video games, or preferring simpler ones with a lower barrier of entry. These are just different ways of achieving the same goal. Having fun. At least in theory.
I suppose it's this sense of the casual games not being "proper" games. Again, this is kind of an odd thing. I mean, yeah some of them are simple. But so was Tetris. And some of them are basically spreadsheets with a flash interface. Not necessarily everyones cup of tea to be sure, but still having some level of complexity. It can't really be through any misplaced sense of ownership. Yes, a lot of them exist on the web. And you don't so much own as use them. But then it's not like these simple puzzle games are exactly absent from the console and handheld seen either is it? But I think this is getting close to the root of the issue. Because if there's one thing that a lot of developers are paying interest to from the popularity of casual games it's the microtransaction payment model.
I think there's a fear of this system migrating into proper games. Subconscious perhaps and almost certainly irrational, but still there. Gamers are generally used to a fairly straightforward kind of transaction in gaming. We pays out money and we takes are choice. We get the game, complete, and it is ours forever. Developers can come and go, and servers can be shut down but we can always play the game we paid for. And the only thing determining how well you do in the game is your own skill.
The same "skill" that allowed me to complete Spawn on the SNES.
Contrast this with a system where you don't really own the game, no matter how much money you invest. And where that investment is mandatory. Because money will beat skill hands down every time. And that investment can be taken away from you at any time if the company decides to shut it's servers down.
This is of course a gross generalisation of the worst aspects of the facebook game trend and, I feel, highly unlikely from a practical standpoint. For all the money that Zynga or whoever rakes in, you need to remember that their development costs are going to be orders of magnitude lower than a big budget triple A title on whatever the reigning console of the current generation may be. That's rather what allows them to make that much in the first place. And whilst there are plenty of MMOs that have successfully used micropayment models of funding they don't tend to be quite so aggressively obnoxious about it. At least not the ones worth playing.
It would be disingenuous to ascribe the divide betwixt these two types of gaming soley to scornful malice on the part of the hardcore though. These are, I think, those who make the argument against the casual games altruistically, and for many of the same reasons I've already outlined. They're glad that more people are embracing some facet of the hobby. But the fact of the matter is that there are some very bad games out there. And even the better ones can have pricing decisions that are utterly baffling. So when they see someone playing a game that asks you to pay the same price as a full, brand new triple A title for a fucking hat or something then yeah, they're going to want to say something. The major problem with microtransaction payment systems does, after all, seem to be the fact that nobody seems to understand what the prefix "Micro" is supposed to actually mean. It's quite understandable for a gamer to want to protect other players from bad games. This doesn't always go well of course as we gamers are a passionate lot, and opinion is by it's very nature somewhat subjective.
What it is it then that defines a game as being casual rather than hardcore? Really I think it comes down to both accessibility and disposability. A casual game is one that it's easy to pick up, yes. But I think it's also one that's easy to put down. Now any game worth playing will be one that keeps you coming back to it. And we know that the casual games are designed with all these nasty little hooks designed to engender compulsive play. But even then it's still played in small, discrete chunks. You can play it for 5 or 10 minutes, and then put it away and do something else. This is something that the big console titles simply don't do. even the shortest increment of playtime is going to be somewhere over half an hour. Probably more, depending on where the save points are. But most of all I think it's probably the fact that you can't actually loose. At no point in your average casual game are you going to face a game over screen and loose 3 hours of progress because you forgot to save. The whole point of these games is, after all, that you can just keep playing them.
And if you can't ever really loose a game, can you ever really win? That's an important facet of the hobby to the hardcore types after all, the feeling of victory at overcoming a challenge.
Okay. So we could uncharitably define a casual game as an online based eater of time and money which replaces deep and engaging gameplay with dull, repetitive clicking on things. Often linked to some crappy social reinforcement to keep people playing and suck in new recruits. One with no real conditions for either victory or defeat. One that is designed for long term commitment, even if it's only in short chunks.
Remind you of anything?
Yeah. That's World Of Smegging Warcraft right there.
See, at the end of the day, games are just games. Trying to divide them up into casual and hardcore doesn't really make any sense to me. You can try to classify them as good or bad. But that's always going to be a matter of opinion. And if there's one thing that WoW proves, it's that there's no accounting for taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment