Why thinking of games as "casual" is a mistake

[cAPSLOCK]

Hawkeye said:
I read it beofre, I'm not going to reread it. Casual term isn't a mistake, just becuase they have been around before doesn't make the term wrong. Hardcore is a mistake; there were hardcore gamers in the Snes days, its not like the appeared this gen, its just that now Hardcore is considered to mean the teenage FPS crowd.

Nintendo is destroying the competion because Nintendo disrupted the market by going after casuals first, and by focusing on casuals. Typically, consoles go after the hardcore, build a base, lower prices, and then appeal to the casuals (this is clearly the strategy Microsft is employing for the 360) This would seem bad for the hardcore gamer becuase it makes them less important, but in reality they are just as important, and their long term viability is increased due to market expenison. A healthy market makes for happy gamers.

 

Casual always struck me as games that can be easily picked up and played without much depth beyond the initial experience. I guess that's why the term I think doesn't apply to a lot of these games as anyone who pokes hard enough in Wii Sports will find a lot more depth than originally thought.

A lower end player might not ever find all the tricks, but it's no fault of the game itself. The thing is (as Nintendo noticed with the DS) is that a lot of these people are putting time into these games and moving "upstream" to the more complex games.

It usually starts with the first complex thing you find in a simpler game. That first topspin in Wii Tennis that encourages you to fiddle with the mechanics and suddenly that player is less "casual" than they were.  Sort of like finding your first secret block in Super Mario Brothers.

I thought the term "gateway drug" was a lot more fitting.