Warning: Wall of Text.
@ infamous23
Most would say that using the word "casual" to generalize a video game would refer to the game itself having a relatively simple concept or being rather easy to jump in to, and can be played in short streams or extended sessions if one desires.
Though most opinions are formed from this sensible conclusion, the word has - for a while now - been bastardized to mean that a game with this label is so simple that it lacks the necessary depth to be played for long periods of time or be appreciated by one who spends lengthy amounts of time playing games, is lacking in quality and polish, and only stupid casual gamers who aren't as clever as us super smart hardcore gamers will find any kind of enjoyment out of them. It is these individuals who are a sheer embarrassment to us respectable gamers who simply wish to play great games.
Those games you simply dismissed as casual, with a very ignorant and shallow opinion of them at that, sought out and appealed to their audience in the way they were supposed to. They provide clear, charming gameplay experiences that aren't available on alternate consoles. Seeking to elevate gaming as a whole beyond the level of mere games is not the priority of these titles, though you know this already, nor is such a thing as important as you're making it sound. You wen't through the majority of those games, looked at their genre's and metacritic scores, then made a hollow judgment of each games quality. What you think of them based on your minimal knowledge does not change the fact that they are new IP's or make them any less relevant - regardless of whether they have a story to tell or not - and it does not mean they cannot be enjoyed by *ahem* core gamers. Contrary to the belief of some.
Actually, I'm going to call bullshit on your quoted meaning for the word casual, because you used the word with the intent of downplaying the games necessity and quality, rather than use your claimed meaning to form a proper opinion of them. For goodness sake you even used the word for games that are yet to be released. You were already proved incorrect when assuming the only new IP's Nintendo made this generation was the Wii line of lighthearted multiplayer games and Flipnote Studio with the list that Khuutra presented. It was also proved by this same list that there have been new IP's under Nintendo's name with heavy depth in both gameplay and storytelling, however it is fairly obvious that you still - and will probably continue to - dismiss the existence of these titles positions as new IP's from Nintendo and downplay their quality to make them seem obsolete.
Bringing up metaranking's of these games do not prove your point at all, and shame on you for even using them in this argument. A perfect example would be this:
Another Code Metacritic score of 66
You use the metacritic score to cloud the fact that it is a new IP from Nintendo that has an engrossing story to tell and a heavy atmosphere. You do the exact same thing with Endless Ocean, i'm not sure what you were even thinking with Bonsai Barber as ESRB and PEGI ratings have absolutely nothing to do with this, and you could not even come up with a way to downplay Elite Beat Agents so you spew absolute nonsense
This casual and core split is disgusting and simply must be brought to an end. It is horrible that people like you will look through a list, stick a Casual label next to a game, and then completely dismiss it's potential quality and appeal. Looking through your answer to Khuutra's list was disheartening. The word Casual appeared so many times that the word lost all meaning. You made no effort to elaborate or explain your thoughts, you just stuck the word Casual next to it and tossed it aside like it supported your backwards meaning of the word. I feel sorry for the people who enjoy these games; to be ceaselessly insulted and judged by those who post on forums if only because they may find some of these games highly enjoyable.
Why? The word core implies the center, or the most important part of something, anything. I can tell you point blank right now that all the great games in the world all sought to be just that first and foremost, great games. I don't know how you managed to come to the conclusion that this is what core games are or this is their purpose but that is not what developers strive for when making a game. I do suggest you reevaluate what you feel is the meaning of these words because right now they are far from accurate.
A core game - as many who follow this industry seem to believe - seems to address a big budget, high quality video game that is aimed at the aforestated individuals who care so deeply about games. But even this is not accurate, and it only highlights how backward some of the people following video games actually are. If we all used proper grammar then maybe people wouldn't end up so confused and lost.
These types of games would be Uncharted (which tells a far better adventure story than many movies including the Crystal Skull have done in recent years), Grand Theft Auto IV (some of the satire and social commentary in the game ranks up there with the likes of South Park), Hideo Kojima's games. . .the closest on Wii would probably be Suda51's games.
It's evident that you don't know enough about Wii games if you believe the closest Wii game to cover such milestones are Suda51's games, but that is far beside the point here. Uncharted, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear Solid. Do you really think these games had the primary intention or focus of challenging classic books or films?
I must say you are really putting too much emphasis on video games telling stories and trying to be compared on the same plane as books, movies and tv shows. I hope you realize that video games are a lot different to other forms of media and the top priority for all the best games have been great gameplay. Storytelling, music, atmosphere and art all serve to compliment that clean gameplay. I had banked on people coming to this realization after the success of Super Mario Galaxy 2, but it seems as though their are still those who believe the second role player is more important than the first at any point. It is upsetting that there are still people out there who will say It's a sequel so it doesn't deserve its scores or It's just the same story again as a means of downplaying the games quality. If only they could see how utterly stupid they sound.
A video game that tells a story well, or looks impressive, or sports a quality sound over is still terrible if the gameplay is not up to scratch, you cannot hide a bad game with beautiful visuals or any secondary trait that happens to be above average.
The old masterpieces: Donkey Kong Country 2, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Chrono Cross, and the newer masterpieces: Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Demons Souls, Halo 3. These are just a couple of the games that are true accomplishments, simply the highest order of video games, none of these though, reached their milestones by trying to compete with highly rated films or by trying to nab that perfect mix of storytelling and gameplay - which is actually governed by gameplay choice and game pacing - but by striving to be great gameplay experiences for all who are willing to give them a chance. The developers of these games did their best to make them as great a games as they could have been and by god they succeeded.
I don't know why it doesn't make sense. It's probably the closest thing to a new core ip they've tried this gen, but since I live in the US and it hasn't been released here, then I can't play it.
I suppose if we are using your meaning of the word core for this then yes you are correct, though that doesn't mean much to me or anybody else.
Unlike the many new core ips that Sony has made this gen and all of them have been released in the US. It's as if NOA doesn't want American gamers to have access to new core ips from Nintendo, but they have no problem debuting a new Wii Series or Mario game at every E3.
Sony have not made more ip's then Nintendo and i don't know how you can claim as such. I say this going by both your definition of the word core and the general meaning that gamers have of the word.
While it can be a little confusing as to why Nintendo of America haven't localized certain games for that region, if you did a little research you would come to some plausible conclusions as to why that may be. Of course it's not going to be a problem localizing a Wii series game or most Mario titles, overseas is where most of the sales potential comes from.
They might all be new ips but the fact is the overwhelming majority of Nintendo's new ips are casual and not core. Unlike Sony.
There have been more new IP's exclusive to Nintendo platforms than Sony platforms this generation. There have been more new IP's from Nintendo than Sony this generation. Casual and core. This is going by both your definition of the word and the general gamers. I don't have to go much further than this, Khuutra provided a list for me.
I do think core games are more important than casual or pure games because most critics of other forms of art would say that in order to be able to become a serious art form, then videogames must demonstrate that they are just as capable of telling such serious stories as well as movies and books can do to move out of the realm of children's toys into the realm of being able to be considered as serious works of art.
Those who claim as such are ignorant to the quality of video games. Actually, those who claim as such are simply idiotic. While it is in no way their forte, video games have proved many times over that they are capable of all that your quote asked of them.
You don't care about any of this do you? Be honest now.
How technical is your game?
Essay Pro