Debate: The Casual VS. The Hardcore

[MarioMadness734]

Right, so do any of you know those annoying gamers, who are way too casual? NO! Of course you don't! So I'm gonna explain.

---

Now, hear me out here: Many people play easy games, like new Super Mario games, right? And it's very likely that they will call themselves a god at video games. You know what happens next? They play a "difficult" game like Mega Man, and die...and die..and die, and you get the point. And you know what they do after that? They make up a really dumb, and stupid excuse like "That isn't fair!".

---

Now I hope you understand what it's like. But now it's your turn to share your thoughts. Leave your choice down below in the poll, or reply to this thread saying why.

---

[smoke40]

Now I hope you understand what it's like.

It's supposed to feel bad? I'd just laugh.

[Hoeloe]

"Casual" and "hardcore" are outdated and useless labels that do nothing but hold back both players and the industry. Case in point - Celeste. Anyone who has played it can attest that Celeste can be brutally hard, BUT it has accessibility options to allow those who don't want to gain the necessary skill, or, more importantly, aren't able to, whether that be due to time investment or physical disability or any other reason. This is a direction things should move in, and we really need to drop the "git gud" approach to difficulty because it's just needless gatekeeping.

Sincerely, someone who has actually spent some time in the game industry and researching this stuff.

[FireyPaperMario]

I'm more "Casual" with most games

[Walder]

hell yeah man casual gamers am i right its almost as if games can be played without applying to the HARDCORE GAMING agenda

[MarioMadness734]

"Casual" and "hardcore" are outdated and useless labels that do nothing but hold back both players and the industry. Case in point - Celeste. Anyone who has played it can attest that Celeste can be brutally hard, BUT it has accessibility options to allow those who don't want to gain the necessary skill, or, more importantly, aren't able to, whether that be due to time investment or physical disability or any other reason. This is a direction things should move in, and we really need to drop the "git gud" approach to difficulty because it's just needless gatekeeping.

Sincerely, someone who has actually spent some time in the game industry and researching this stuff.

And yet, for the games that do have something like a difficulty setting, most of the time they pick the easiest mode possible. It completely eliminates the challenge, and that also removes the point of purchasing the game. Don't people buy games for a challenge?

---

Sincerely, someone who has actually spent some time in the game industry

https://scratch.mit.edu/users/MegaMarioKirby3451/

Need I say more?

[rixithechao]

Now, hear me out here: Many people play easy games, like new Super Mario games, right? And it's very likely that they will call themselves a god at video games. You know what happens next? They play a "difficult" game like Mega Man, and die...and die..and die, and you get the point. And you know what they do after that? They make up a really dumb, and stupid excuse like "That isn't fair!".

There are some people like that out there, but you've got a pretty distorted view of the gaming public if you think all or most players who fit some definition of "casual" are that brand of poor sport.

And yet, for the games that do have something like a difficulty setting, most of the time they pick the easiest mode possible. It completely eliminates the challenge, and that also removes the point of purchasing the game. Don't people buy games for a challenge?

People go into games looking for different kinds of experiences. Some folks don't want a competition or challenge, maybe they're interested in the story or they want to explore, create, socialize, etc. Aside from that, relative challenge is a thing; what may be easy for you or me could be much more challenging for others and vice-versa. And really, if the experience is challenging enough or otherwise satisfying for a player, does it matter that they choose to experience the game in a different way than you?

Sincerely, someone who has actually spent some time in the game industry

https://scratch.mit.edu/users/MegaMarioKirby3451/

Need I say more?

Just so you know, Hoeloe is the head of his own game company and he's contributed to fairly high-profile titles like Lego Dimensions.

[Eri7]

I'm casual when I play other games than smbx but when I play smbx I get very hardcore.

[Hoeloe]

Aside from that, relative challenge is a thing; what may be easy for you or me could be much more challenging for others and vice-versa.

This is also compounded by different games having a different measure of difficulty. "Easy" mode in one game may be a totally different difficulty level than "easy" mode in another game (which is generally why I tend to prefer systems other than the simple "choose easy, normal, or hard"). On top of this, you'll often have to make this choice before actually playing the game, with no way to switch it later, which just leaves a bad taste.

Rocky is basically right. If someone enjoys games just crashing through them without much challenge, that's no problem. Similarly, if someone enjoys kaizo levels of difficulty, that's also no problem. Enforcing the idea that people must play game a specific way is just gatekeeping, and that's frankly bad for literally everyone.

[Enjl]

Not to mention the terms casual and hardcore are completely insignificant if everyone has a different defintion of what they mean.
The outline in the first post is, as far as my definition is concerned, completely unrelated to the subject. My definition puts consumers of casual games against people who play non-casual games, and there can be overlaps depending on the current need of the consumer.

Personal skill level (the thing OP complains about) and desired experience (casual, highspeed action, realistic simulation, romance) are important in understanding your game's audience, but it's silly to mock people for having a lower skill level or different interests than you do.

[MarioMadness734]

Sincerely, someone who has actually spent some time in the game industry

https://scratch.mit.edu/users/MegaMarioKirby3451/

Need I say more?

Just so you know, Hoeloe is the head of his own game company and he's contributed to fairly high-profile titles like Lego Dimensions.

Well I'll take your word for it, but then why is he in the fan community? I feel like Nintendo (or any company for that matter) might try to take action.

[ElectriKong]

https://scratch.mit.edu/users/MegaMarioKirby3451/

Need I say more?

Just so you know, Hoeloe is the head of his own game company and he's contributed to fairly high-profile titles like Lego Dimensions.

Well I'll take your word for it, but then why is he in the fan community? I feel like Nintendo (or any company for that matter) might try to take action.

Why does being a head of a video game company (or having any other type of job) be relevant to whether or not you should be in a fangame community or play fangames?
Also having a Scratch account does not constitute being part of the video game industry.

[FireyPaperMario]

Even if i ever become a game developer for my indie game ideas, i'll keep the first half (Or 3/4) of the game for Casual play.

[Thehelmetguy1]

hi im an elitist that hates casual players that play to have an easy, fun time and only likes when you play hard games because different tastes are irrelevant and there is only one reason anyone should play a game also being a fangame maker means you are making a bad decision
Done, here is a good portion of the stuff that mariomadness said put together in a single post.

[MarioMadness734]

Just so you know, Hoeloe is the head of his own game company and he's contributed to fairly high-profile titles like Lego Dimensions.

Well I'll take your word for it, but then why is he in the fan community? I feel like Nintendo (or any company for that matter) might try to take action.

Why does being a head of a video game company (or having any other type of job) be relevant to whether or not you should be in a fangame community or play fangames?
Also having a Scratch account does not constitute being part of the video game industry.

Wouldn't the company be sued by another one? I'm not saying he's not allowed to, but wouldn't Nintendo or any other company sue?

As for the Scratch account, that's just your opinion.

[Thehelmetguy1]

Hopefully you are aware that you are telling people shouldn't make fangames in a forum for a fangame

[ElectriKong]

As for the Scratch account, that's just your opinion.

It's not.

[Walder]

You aren't part of the gaming industry, as you just developed games. Did you do marketing/saling for it? The answer to this question is also the same as "Are you a part of the gaming industry?" .