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.
