Crysis 2


if you think these high tech games these days arent about skill level, then you havent played them online

That's the point - I have. They still look fine, but everything moves way too fast - people bouncing around here and there, and there's just no time to stop and look at the scenery, to enjoy a story. I don't really find multiplayer that much of a challenge - more a chore, and it's very dull just walking around shooting people for no more reason than to be able to say that "I've managed to shoot X number of people, go me".


I'm afraid I must be terribly out of touch with modern gaming. I'm off back to my nice game of Dead Space 2. On easy.


D.
See I see it the opposite way I dont get any joy from playing recent game single player, ohh look I just killed an ai which was turned down because if it was supposed to kill it it would have hit me 1st time in the head, to me its like running a race against a robot who is intentionally running behind you to let you win vs racing other humans who you have a chance of beating if you work hard enough


Modern FPS dont have a good enough story to play for that reason, but I have put in many many hours from counter strike 1.5 all through to call of duty black ops playing multi player, Im quite competative so if I know I am beating other people Im happy, and with voice comms its even better (except the wierdos who you have to mute as soon as the game starts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always buy games for the single player first and then the multi-player second. I'm more into story than I am into game play. I also only like to play multi-player with people I know, it is just way more fun for me than just jumping online and playing with random people.


To each his own I guess.
 
if you think these high tech games these days arent about skill level, then you havent played them online

That's the point - I have. They still look fine, but everything moves way too fast - people bouncing around here and there, and there's just no time to stop and look at the scenery, to enjoy a story. I don't really find multiplayer that much of a challenge - more a chore, and it's very dull just walking around shooting people for no more reason than to be able to say that "I've managed to shoot X number of people, go me".


I'm afraid I must be terribly out of touch with modern gaming. I'm off back to my nice game of Dead Space 2. On easy.


D.
See I see it the opposite way I dont get any joy from playing recent game single player, ohh look I just killed an ai which was turned down because if it was supposed to kill it it would have hit me 1st time in the head, to me its like running a race against a robot who is intentionally running behind you to let you win vs racing other humans who you have a chance of beating if you work hard enough


Modern FPS dont have a good enough story to play for that reason, but I have put in many many hours from counter strike 1.5 all through to call of duty black ops playing multi player, Im quite competative so if I know I am beating other people Im happy, and with voice comms its even better (except the wierdos who you have to mute as soon as the game starts

I love me a good story. These days, the replayability and general gameplay is so low-brow that if it's not got a reasonable experience then I'm not going to bother with it. I've not been interested in CODBLOPS et al, because there is no story there - it's almost exclusively designed for people to get together and shoot eachother. As I mentioned, I played Dead Space 2 because the story is pretty fun. Its predecessor was excellent. I'm looking forward to Prey 2, because the original game was wonderful to trek through and admire the gameplay effects and scenery.


Hey, sod the 90s, I want gaming back in the 80s :)


Though there were some real gems in the 90s - I enjoyed my Amiga and Megadrive. It's interesting that there was very little in the way of engaging storyline in the earlier decades - Turrican had very little but had gameplay by the bucket load. Jet Set Willy had very little, but again the "one more go" factor was immense - and that holds true for so many hundreds of 8but games. It's something that's sorely lacking these days.


D.
 
Nope, consoles are for the ones that don't want to spend 300€ on a new graphic card every 3 month because the new game can't be played with full details with their old one.
I built all my computers myself (excepted laptops
dry.gif
) since I was 12 years old and I'm currently studying programming (C, C++ and java). So I think my knowledge is better than just "basic". But I still enjoy having a console that just works without tweaking, where you just plug the game and it works.
The most powerful console GPU is an old ATI 48 shader design in the XBox 360. For all intents and purposes that is equivalent to a AMD 700-series chipset IGP launched in 2007 2 years after the XBox 360 was unvieled. Thanks to Qualcomm buying old ATI IP the newest Qualcomm series with the Adreno 300 series GPU will literally have equivalent GPU power. Meaning shortly Smart Phones, nevermind larger systems, will be humiliating all proprietary gaming systems.

There is no real indication of meaningful GPU drag associated with the Windows Shell, particularly as it is only within the past few months they actually had the Shell start leveraging things for GPGPU acceleration. CPU wise your average demanding console game requires a 2GHz Dual core, which was the speed of the slowest non-CULV mobile Core2Duo.


Add onto this the simple fact that GPU design iterations are normally yearly or longer, and your post advertizes itself as the province of a drama queen with such a utter lack of self control they need to be forced by manufacturer to use a gutless solution lest thoughts of anything higher would drive them into anxiety attacks leading them to burn out their videocard on a quarterly basis.


For your information Crysis 2 for console is Low optimized to sort of look like Medium in classic Crysis terms. Consoles don't have the assets to run full on Medium, High, or Very High let alone with the extra filtering drag the benchmark site usually include. That holding true despite the fact Crysis 2 has abandoned Sandbox for the vastly less computationally intensive Set Piece approach. Meanwhile with current assets you can get a card that handles Crysis smoothly at Very High at 1080p for around 100USD, and obviously casually maxes anything a console could theoretically slideshow.


At most with new games there's a need to update drivers and Steam already has a one button solution for that with ATI/AMD cards, with them handling any patching of games themselves automatically. In the Linux field most distros have all this handled by the automatic package manager, unless you intentionally choose to tinker with it yourself. So to be quite blunt if your fussing with it on a computer, it is because you choose to and thus you have not justification to tantrum over. Not that it's required to tinker with anything at all 99% of the time, if we exclude fussing with things requiring compatibility layers.

I always buy games for the single player first and then the multi-player second.
Agreed. Why buy a game so you can deal with people trying to break the game with stupid stuff? They were doing it in the Quake 2 days, and everytime I've checked back in they're still doing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of modern games are seeming to go into the "difficulty optional" design, and I think it's trash. The player is only entitled to play through to the end of the game when he's proven his skill as the player. Games have been getting progressively easier, but thanks to studios like Treasure, SNK, and Atlus, there are still some tough games out there.

I disagree there. I play a game to enjoy the storyline, not to get frustrated butting my head against a wall because my reactions aren't quick enough to get through a particular section. Games haven't been about skill levels since the days of the 16bits - now it's all graphics and story, with very little gameplay. To that end, I like my modern games set on the most ridiculously easy setting so I can stroll through and admire the scenery.


D.


How do you feel about paying full price for a game that doesn't test your skills and merely shows off technical prowess? A game that you'll play through a maximum of three times and, since it's clear you don't value challenge (even the average gamer will go to Normal), may as well be a movie. It's a big waste of money, man. Movies are cheaper, too!


Gaming started being tainted by the practices of Hollywood around the time the PS1 came onto the scene and, suddenly, they could cram all sorts of CG scenes onto a (relatively) huge capacity medium. It got to the point of utter market saturation and hit the mainstream (PS2, Wii), which means developers began catering to the most common denominator by numbers. Unfortunately, with that high population comes a lot of apathy, fickleness, and no sense of accomplishment in their entertainment. Today we call them "casuals"; people who don't actually care about what goes into the game. They just want to be occupied and wowed for a few hours.


If this sounds like you (or anyone else), I urge you (and them) to go watch a movie, which is designed to do that for you. Just as giving medicine to someone doesn't make you a doctor, just playing games doesn't make you a gamer. There's more that goes into both being a doctor and a (real) gamer.


My apologies for addressing your post and then ranting. It's not just you, but a very clear problem with the current gamer culture. People are increasingly wanting things handed to them, without having to try, and I frankly find it shameful and insulting as a gamer who is having more and more trouble finding quality games with good gameplay, story, and difficulty.


Get off my lawn. :p
 
How do you feel about paying full price for a game that doesn't test your skills and merely shows off technical prowess? A game that you'll play through a maximum of three times and, since it's clear you don't value challenge (even the average gamer will go to Normal), may as well be a movie. It's a big waste of money, man. Movies are cheaper, too!

I don't feel bad at all - and I really enjoyed trundling through Dead Space 2 just recently (and Batman: AA just dropped on Steam, so I grabbed that too). Actually, getting all the riddler thingies in batman was quite fun, but not challenging in the slightest which left me plenty of leeway to admire the scenery. It really is quite a beautiful game, especially with all the detail and physics settings up at highest!

Today we call them "casuals"; people who don't actually care about what goes into the game. They just want to be occupied and wowed for a few hours.


If this sounds like you (or anyone else), I urge you (and them) to go watch a movie, which is designed to do that for you. Just as giving medicine to someone doesn't make you a doctor, just playing games doesn't make you a gamer. There's more that goes into both being a doctor and a (real) gamer.

This is me to a "T", but I do enjoy me some JSW or Sabre Wulf... And Sonic, and Turrican, and Giana (not the shitty PC remake, the original) and Aeroblasters, and Ghouls'n'Ghosts arcade, Earthbound etc. None of which have difficulty settings!


Am I really a casual gamer? Because I only tend to play older games for the challenge and newer games for the experience, I can't be classed as a gamer? Older games tend to be a lot harder than newer games in my experience. So what sort of gamer am I? I play the older (8/16bit) games at their original difficulty. I suppose this is because it's worth playing the older games for their gameplay and newer games are just not worth the effort - their graphics are far more rewarding.


D.
 
I think the best games are the ones that get you into the game and challenging enough to not be annoying, I am a big adventure game fan and they used to be more fun because they were lengthy and you didnt have easy access to a walkthrough. But some newer adventure (especially bttf the game) games have a buildt in walkthrough and non-challenging puzzles and then it becomes a movie (a good one) but not a real game.


I think it is the tendency now to make games that can easily be finished in a week, and I think a lot of people want it that way. The days of a 30 hour game that took months to complete is gone.
 
I think the best games are the ones that get you into the game and challenging enough to not be annoying, I am a big adventure game fan and they used to be more fun because they were lengthy and you didnt have easy access to a walkthrough. But some newer adventure (especially bttf the game) games have a buildt in walkthrough and non-challenging puzzles and then it becomes a movie (a good one) but not a real game.


I think it is the tendency now to make games that can easily be finished in a week, and I think a lot of people want it that way. The days of a 30 hour game that took months to complete is gone.

Very true. I also think that the comment that people who aren't prepared to put in months of practice to become "real gamers" and just want to be entertained for a few hours should go watch a movie to be a bit silly.


I can't control a movie. I can't wander off and look out of the window, or investigate a room off the main path. So no, movies are not for me. I like games with an easy difficulty mode, and that makes me just as much a "gamer" as anyone else.


D.
 
If farming mobs to gain levels in a jrpg is "easy gaming" count me in
laugh.gif
 
There's no such thing as "casual gamers". It's just a polite industryite way of calling those of us who they are unable to produce quality software for "retarded gamers". I will stick with my 2D platformers and my challenges and my interesting new ways of playing within this still-developing medium (anyone up for a Wii Fit Plus high score challenge? :p ), and you "real gamers" can chuck around all the infant-school-level slurs you like. :p


Frankly, I find the term "real gamers" to be quite humourous, as there are only people who play video games and people who do not - "real gamers" implies that somehow, those of us in the majority, who such folks don't consider "real", somehow don't exist. :lol:


I also find it humourous how such a long time was spent trying to convince "real gamers" that video games magically became mainstream overnight one day, and then when the actual mainstream began to join (much, much later than the alleged "mainstreaming" was originally said to have occurred) in all they wanted to do was call people names and ostracise us.


Goodness knows, though, I would find it mildly offensive if anyone labelled me as a "gamer", due to the way that most who identify themselves as gamers behave. Those of us who don't identify ourselves as such seem to have no such issues, I notice - we're just happy for everyone to just enjoy what they want to enjoy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no such thing as "casual gamers". It's just a polite industryite way of calling those of us who they are unable to produce quality software for "retarded gamers". I will stick with my 2D platformers and my challenges and my interesting new ways of playing within this still-developing medium (anyone up for a Wii Fit Plus high score challenge? :p ), and you "real gamers" can chuck around all the infant-school-level slurs you like. :p


Frankly, I find the term "real gamers" to be quite humourous, as there are only people who play video games and people who do not - "real gamers" implies that somehow, those of us in the majority, who such folks don't consider "real", somehow don't exist. :lol:


I also find it humourous how such a long time was spent trying to convince "real gamers" that video games magically became mainstream overnight one day, and then when the actual mainstream began to join (much, much later than the alleged "mainstreaming" was originally said to have occurred) in all they wanted to do was call people names and ostracise us.


Goodness knows, though, I would find it mildly offensive if anyone labelled me as a "gamer", due to the way that most who identify themselves as gamers behave. Those of us who don't identify ourselves as such seem to have no such issues, I notice - we're just happy for everyone to just enjoy what they want to enjoy.

I wish this forum had a like button, purely for posts like this.
 
There's no such thing as "casual gamers". It's just a polite industryite way of calling those of us who they are unable to produce quality software for "retarded gamers". I will stick with my 2D platformers and my challenges and my interesting new ways of playing within this still-developing medium (anyone up for a Wii Fit Plus high score challenge? :p ), and you "real gamers" can chuck around all the infant-school-level slurs you like. :p


Frankly, I find the term "real gamers" to be quite humourous, as there are only people who play video games and people who do not - "real gamers" implies that somehow, those of us in the majority, who such folks don't consider "real", somehow don't exist. :lol:


I also find it humourous how such a long time was spent trying to convince "real gamers" that video games magically became mainstream overnight one day, and then when the actual mainstream began to join (much, much later than the alleged "mainstreaming" was originally said to have occurred) in all they wanted to do was call people names and ostracise us.


Goodness knows, though, I would find it mildly offensive if anyone labelled me as a "gamer", due to the way that most who identify themselves as gamers behave. Those of us who don't identify ourselves as such seem to have no such issues, I notice - we're just happy for everyone to just enjoy what they want to enjoy.

A casual gamer can call him or herself a casual all they want, but they will be laughed at if they try to consider themselves to be a part of the same group that includes challenge seekers, older gamers, and people who enjoy games for their gameplay and design over their graphics.


Also, I urge you to find some proof that the mainstreaming of gaming was steady and progressive instead of coinciding with the release of the PS1, PS2, and Wii, which all had something going for them that opened up the market. The PS1 boasted its cutscenes and CD support, the PS2 had built-in DVD playing (when DVD players were expensive), and the Wii brought the biggest expansion of the audience ever seen so far thanks to its motion controls and games that had a low barrier-of-entry to play. Games that, to any real gamer, were extremely easy and gave rise to an industry-wide drop in difficulty and solid game design. It wasn't until a few companies heard the real gamers' call that we started to see even a smidge of true difficulty in single player games. Getting back to that point will take a little while, but it will happen, since the mainstream will only do it as long as their friends do it and it's "cool".


Thankfully, the casuals will find their niche in the iOS, Android, and Flash world and eventually gaming will return to a state where good games are made again.


One may ask me why I think the two camps can't co-exist. It's mainly due to the nature of the mainstream. They need something new coming out all the time, over and over to keep their attention. They wouldn't be able to handle the same game droughts we gamers used to suffer through the summers (something that thankfully doesn't occur too much anymore). There's no loyalty in them, either. They're as fickle and unfocused as children. But hey, as long as they're occupied for a few hours, who cares how much work was put into a game, or their intentions with the story? Entertainment's just a commodity and not an art, right? </sarcasm>


I'll be the first to admit that I feel like my chosen form of media has been invaded upon by shallow people who have no respect for gaming. They think that since they are _the mainstream_ and larger in number that their opinion not only holds more weight, but we real gamers don't matter! What they (and developers) don't realize is that once the mainstream has moved on, the real gamers will be the ones left to carry on the industry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to also challenge the idea that becoming a real gamer is a matter of months of practice. It may take that long to really get the hang of it, but it's more a change of perspective. Seeing games as an opportunity to interact with a piece of art someone made, and hopefully get some skill out of it. I don't mean just the graphics; any idiot with eyes can appreciate visual art, but it takes a little more to appreciate the design of an interactive experience. Not all real games fit that role, either. Some games are functional and focus sheerly on the gameplay. Others are designed to be like interactive movies (which... well, it's not a game at that point.) The best games are the ones that blend good game design with good aesthetics and offer gamers many different ways to play through.


Becoming a real gamer is merely a matter of enjoying the experience of interacting with a machine and learning how to get better at it. It also helps to consider games an art form. You only need months of practice if you hope to brag or compete.


EDIT: As for the "real" mocking... do you consider someone who sketches in their free time an artist? Assume this person only does it for fun and has no intention of learning more about it, improving, or talking with other artists about art. There is more to being something like that than simply doing it. I can play an instrument or two, but I don't play regularly and I don't really talk about music playing very often. Can I call myself a musician? I don't think so. This all-inclusive outlook allows people to think that they can be a part of a group despite sharing only a few things with the group they say they're a part of. If you use the label, you need to make sure you meet the criteria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A casual gamer can call him or herself a casual all they want, but they will be laughed at if they try to consider themselves to be a part of the same group that includes challenge seekers, older gamers, and people who enjoy games for their gameplay and design over their graphics.
Laugh at me all you want: We are both. You see, the "casual" labelling gets applied to people who have been lost as of and after the "32-bit generation", too. We were lost customers, and we came back when *real* mainstream appeal returned. The likes of the Atari 2600, the NES, and (in the UK) the Sega Master System, were mainstream. The 16-bit consoles were to a degree. After that? No.

Also, I urge you to find some proof that the mainstreaming of gaming was steady and progressive instead of coinciding with the release of the PS1, PS2, and Wii, which all had something going for them that opened up the market. The PS1 boasted its cutscenes and CD support, the PS2 had built-in DVD playing (when DVD players were expensive), and the Wii brought the biggest expansion of the audience ever seen so far thanks to its motion controls and games that had a low barrier-of-entry to play. Games that, to any real gamer, were extremely easy and gave rise to an industry-wide drop in difficulty and solid game design. It wasn't until a few companies heard the real gamers' call that we started to see even a smidge of true difficulty in single player games.
The PSX and PS2 were the consoles I was referring to when I mentioned how "real gamers" spent time convincing themselves that gaming magically became mainstream overnight when it did not. There were no social phenomenons with these consoles. What there was, was a drop - we went from mainstream to *not*.


The Wii (and the DS), being a social phenomenon following on from the aforementioned 2600, NES, and Master System, brought back a great deal of us lost customers, who "real gamers" like to label with silly names. It really sucks to have had our tastes (games with challenge, 2D platforming, stuff that is just different, and so on and so forth) labelled as "ghetto" and "handhelds-only" until that, because of a loud minority.

Getting back to that point will take a little while, but it will happen, since the mainstream will only do it as long as their friends do it and it's "cool".
It's very easy to put labels on us, since I know those you guys label as you do are not commonly found in your circles online - we generally tend to prefer not to deal with it, as we're often shouted down and treated impolitely by those who do not understand us. The fact is, we don't care about what's cool - we care about what's fun, and if it's good it will sell.

Thankfully, the casuals will find their niche in the iOS, Android, and Flash world and eventually gaming will return to a state where good games are made again.
It already did, starting in 2004 when the DS was released. We rejoiced and returned, and instead of being welcomed because "real gamers" seem to crave video games being "recognised" and "mainstream", we were instead slurred and treated with unpleasantries, because what we like is not always the same as what "real gamers" like. Often behind our backs because we generally avoid "gamer" circles.


Trying to put us in a "pen" where you can try to ignore us will only kill the market entirely.

One may ask me why I think the two camps can't co-exist. It's mainly due to the nature of the mainstream. They need something new coming out all the time, over and over to keep their attention.
That's a trait I observe more in those who identify themselves as so-called "real gamers". A new Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, etcetera, every year, all the time, endless war-based shooters, and so on.

They wouldn't be able to handle the same game droughts we gamers used to suffer through the summers (something that thankfully doesn't occur too much anymore). There's no loyalty in them, either. They're as fickle and unfocused as children.
Droughts? Let me tell you about droughts: We've been mostly ignored since the mid-1990s. We have loyalty to what is fun. If something doesn't appeal to us, we take our business elsewhere. We are not fickle - we just go elsewhere if people decide they don't want our business and our money.


It is too easy to claim we are like children. This truly is not so - if something is of poor quality, we just go elsewhere, and our reasons why are either ignored or not heard.

But hey, as long as they're occupied for a few hours, who cares how much work was put into a game, or their intentions with the story? Entertainment's just a commodity and not an art, right? </sarcasm>
I primarily don't really care about "art" in an entertainment medium, although I respect that entertainment can be artistic. Primarily, though, I care about entertainment. "My kind" are all the same - if we're paying large amounts of money for an experience *for us*, we'll be thinking about what we get out of it. The best experiences, we find, are those where we can be ourselves, not where some badly-penned Hollywood-wannabe "story" is rammed down our throats - the best story is the one we take part in making. (To use a classical example, Super Mario Bros. is one, Mega Man is one, the older Final Fantasy games are some, and so on - how did you rescue the princess? How did you save the world? It's your story.)


Business is in the business of making customers. The customer is first. If something is good, we will appreciate it, if something is not good, we will go elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are often shouted down by those who think they know us better than we do, so our voices and reasons are rarely heard.

I'll be the first to admit that I feel like my chosen form of media has been invaded upon by shallow people who have no respect for gaming. They think that since they are _the mainstream_ and larger in number that their opinion not only holds more weight, but we real gamers don't matter! What they (and developers) realize is that once the mainstream has moved on, the real gamers will be the ones left to carry on the industry.
For some of us, our chosen form of media was "invaded" by those who didn't want games anymore, and who instead wanted pretend movies, and to try to gain "acceptance" for something video games aren't. We have been left unserved since the mid-90s, and even longer in some cases. When we returned, we are labelled with things like "shallow", and "casuals", and were told that we don't matter because we are not "real".


Some developers fail to realise that by not making good games - games that sell - they will die. So many studios have died through not realising this, or by listening to a tiny niche that yells that they are the majority and that we, the real majority, are "fad"-buyers who will soon be gone. The reality is that many of us are the old lost customers who were long ago driven away, not some mysterious alien group who will go away if you all shout loud enough and get big-enough earplugs.


What the "real gamers" fail to realise, is that the market has been in decline for many years - hidden by good times in the economy, multiple-console-ownership with the small group who stayed after driving the rest of us away, and so on (the "industry" is, in fact, the problem, as it has propagated these myths) - and that we are all the market. By trying to exclude some of us, there will soon be no all of us, and the market will die.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but it takes a little more to appreciate the design of an interactive experience. Not all real games fit that role, either. Some games are functional and focus sheerly on the gameplay. Others are designed to be like interactive movies (which... well, it's not a game at that point.) The best games are the ones that blend good game design with good aesthetics and offer gamers many different ways to play through.
That's right - you do get it! Although, again, there is no such thing as "real games" and "not-real games". (Also, I disagree on the "art" point - I'll get to that in a moment. :p )


Emergent gameplay is important, as are so many things.


The real danger is trying to freeze out those who enjoy things that don't conform to one small group's perception of this.

Becoming a real gamer is merely a matter of enjoying the experience of interacting with a machine and learning how to get better at it. It also helps to consider games an art form. You only need months of practice if you hope to brag or compete.
I have to disagree here. Games are not an art form, they are an entertainment medium. I'm not saying that they cannot be artistic and that there is no room for niche things like this, but they are an entertainment medium primarily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder something, Prometheus. You seem to share the traits of real gamers (appreciation for good game series like Mario, Mega Man, et al) and new, good gaming experiences like what the DS and Wii offered (despite the boatloads of shovelware), yet you seem to be in the casuals' corner... Why is this?


There was definitely a boom in gaming when the NES revived the industry, and it continued into the 16-bit generation. However, the 32-bit gen garnered a lot of appeal as well. People who had no intentions of being gamers before had suddenly gotten into it. Mainly for the graphics, but I digress. This coincided with the steady fall of classic genres, which I also lament. It seems like others share my feelings but are part of the problem (the war-game guys who are new to gaming and are in it for the gore, pretentious retro guys who don't actually play old games, graphics > gameplay guys, etc).


I'm not the kind of person who rejects new ideas as long as they're good and serve the chosen genre well. I don't agree with the current "hardcore" trend of bloody shooters, high-end graphics, and potty-mouth. That's just the teenage market that's been in a boom for a while. I feel your pain when it comes to platformers and new experiences. But the overall drop in quality is also partly the casual market. Both the hardcore (I can't decide if they're real gamers or not. It's all about ego for them since they mostly play online FPSes) and the casuals are diluting the variety and quality of games made. Because games are also more expensive to make than ever, devs are less ready to take a chance on a new idea, and I wish they'd take more chances so we could at least get more ideas out there. The DS was well-known for allowing devs to do that in its early years... and then it too diluted. Now, the 3DS has augmented reality and other weird ideas that, while novel, I don't think will have any practical application in a real game. At least they're trying, though, which is more than I can say for the other manufacturers.


I think that the market is sufficiently large as it is. It needs to refine, though, and we need those casuals to become enamored with real games. Ideas like Nintendo's Super Guide are a good idea since they allow the games to maintain difficulty and teach less experienced gamers how to get better. Everyone wins with technology like that, so why aren't more developers coming up with similar ideas?
 
I wonder something, Prometheus. You seem to share the traits of real gamers (appreciation for good game series like Mario, Mega Man, et al) and new, good gaming experiences like what the DS and Wii offered (despite the boatloads of shovelware), yet you seem to be in the casuals' corner... Why is this?
I would appreciate it if you do not use the term "gamer" or "real gamer" to refer to me. The way that "real gamers" behave in trying to segregate "us" from "them" disgusts me, and I would certainly not want to be associated with the sort of behaviour of people who would deny me and those with tastes like mine the ability to ever play video games, and who want the medium to die when they do.


Do you want to know something interesting? The same was said of the NES gamers and those who played arcade games that are now well-known and very much beloved. They were the "casual scourge" of their day. Read this - it turns out that in the 80s, the same labels and behaviour were still around. It's funny how this has been forgotten, and how you now say to me that I have appreciation for "good" things, when back then these things were being labelled as being "bad" in the same way that you are labelling "the casuals" now.


That said, if you must use these labels, then I will stand in the corner that I - and as you can see from that link above, we all - originally came from, and stand by "my kind". I identify myself proudly as a "game-player", by the way - I am a person who plays video games, the same as everyone else who plays video games, no matter what those video games happen to be. These "casual" and "real" labels are a recent revival of the aforementioned 80s problem, and they need to go: As I said before, there is *no such thing* as a "casual". We all play video games - we are all the same, no matter what type of video games we all happen to like or not like. That labelling is an attempt by a minority to prevent things that need to happen.

There was definitely a boom in gaming when the NES revived the industry, and it continued into the 16-bit generation. However, the 32-bit gen garnered a lot of appeal as well. People who had no intentions of being gamers before had suddenly gotten into it. Mainly for the graphics, but I digress. This coincided with the steady fall of classic genres, which I also lament. It seems like others share my feelings but are part of the problem (the war-game guys who are new to gaming and are in it for the gore, pretentious retro guys who don't actually play old games, graphics > gameplay guys, etc).
The 32-bit generation hid a decline - that fall of classic genres you mention lamenting is part of it. I'll be providing some articles relating to this on a broad scale in a moment, in my next paragraph - you may find them to be interesting.

I think that the market is sufficiently large as it is. It needs to refine, though, and we need those casuals to become enamored with real games. Ideas like Nintendo's Super Guide are a good idea since they allow the games to maintain difficulty and teach less experienced gamers how to get better. Everyone wins with technology like that, so why aren't more developers coming up with similar ideas?
It's not large, it's declining badly - the only uptick recently has been from the DS and the Wii, and the "industry" did all it could to claim credit then, before blaming Nintendo and "casuals" when things started to drop off a little bit because they do not understand what had occurred in the market, and then failed to capitalise on it themselves by labelling us as "casuals" and making bad games and expecting them to buy them because "casuals want new stuff all the time and will buy whatever is advertised to them, which they will buy as long as they think it's 'cool'".


And again there is no such thing as "casuals". It seems you've been drilled with a lot of industryite terms, which are used to try to segregate portions of the market that the minority who want to take gaming in a bad direction find undesirable. This is not the way to grow the market, and it disappoints me every time that I see it - it's a symptom of the "industry" trying to "go upmarket" and pretend that those of us being labelled in that way are "beneath" and "inferior to" those doing the labelling (this is the intended effect of these labels).


This said, my friend, it looks like we are in fact on the same page (and what you say about Super Guide is dead-on, incidentally!). :) To that end, I would like to strongly recommend that you read the articles of Sean Malstrom, starting with this one, as I think you will find them interesting. He has a blog here, too, although he seems to have taken personal offence to the 3DS of late and seems to be failing to see how it will do in the bigger picture (once you get an an idea of Disruption from Malstrom's older writings, you will probably be able to see what he is missing). The same goes for the rest of you, too, and any of you with an interest in the entertainment business - whilst Malstrom's writings are mainly about video games, they apply to other declining entertainment industries as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder something, Prometheus. You seem to share the traits of real gamers (appreciation for good game series like Mario, Mega Man, et al) and new, good gaming experiences like what the DS and Wii offered (despite the boatloads of shovelware), yet you seem to be in the casuals' corner... Why is this?


There was definitely a boom in gaming when the NES revived the industry, and it continued into the 16-bit generation. However, the 32-bit gen garnered a lot of appeal as well. People who had no intentions of being gamers before had suddenly gotten into it. Mainly for the graphics, but I digress. This coincided with the steady fall of classic genres, which I also lament. It seems like others share my feelings but are part of the problem (the war-game guys who are new to gaming and are in it for the gore, pretentious retro guys who don't actually play old games, graphics > gameplay guys, etc).


I'm not the kind of person who rejects new ideas as long as they're good and serve the chosen genre well. I don't agree with the current "hardcore" trend of bloody shooters, high-end graphics, and potty-mouth. That's just the teenage market that's been in a boom for a while. I feel your pain when it comes to platformers and new experiences. But the overall drop in quality is also partly the casual market. Both the hardcore (I can't decide if they're real gamers or not. It's all about ego for them since they mostly play online FPSes) and the casuals are diluting the variety and quality of games made. Because games are also more expensive to make than ever, devs are less ready to take a chance on a new idea, and I wish they'd take more chances so we could at least get more ideas out there. The DS was well-known for allowing devs to do that in its early years... and then it too diluted. Now, the 3DS has augmented reality and other weird ideas that, while novel, I don't think will have any practical application in a real game. At least they're trying, though, which is more than I can say for the other manufacturers.


I think that the market is sufficiently large as it is. It needs to refine, though, and we need those casuals to become enamored with real games. Ideas like Nintendo's Super Guide are a good idea since they allow the games to maintain difficulty and teach less experienced gamers how to get better. Everyone wins with technology like that, so why aren't more developers coming up with similar ideas?

One possibility is that the even distinction between 'real' gamers and 'casual' gamers is a bit ridiculous. Surely there are only two camps, those who play games and those who do not? I think that this shunning and belittling of people who simply have a preference for easier games is childish and absurd. I think the sooner the phrase 'Hardcore Gamer' dies the better. I refuse to declare myself a 'Gamer' and refuse to have much to do with the so-called 'Gaming' sub culture. It is a cesspit filled with juvenile idiots who use profanity and homophobia to hide their own shortcomings as individuals. Sometimes people just play a game for fun, I know I do. Be it on Wii, PS3 or whatever. Sometimes I don't want a cinematic experience or a hard fought grind fest. Sometimes I just want to throw some bombs at a pile of bricks, or batter like hell on some drums. I feel the ones really leeching the fun out of gaming are the gamers.
 
Oh, also, sporkbox, I just want to say a sincere thankyou. This has been a very interesting discussion for me, and most of all, it's enabled me to be able to say something that I have not wanted to say since the late 1990s. That being, what I said about proudly being a game-player, and standing alongside other game-players no matter what their tastes.


The want to say that disappeared back when the disgust I mentioned set in with me and those like me, and I owe you thanks for enabling me to be able to say it again. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top