By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Anyway, the main problems I have with the term "casual" games are as follows:

- The Definition of a "casual" game is completely relative and always changing. There was a time when games like Pacman, old Mario games, even Zelda, were considered casual, or "watered down" by the snobby computer gamers in the 80s. Some people define a casual game as mini games, party games, whatever. Others definite them as easy, watered down games. Some claim cutesy, kiddie style games to be casual. And still others simply classify anything that has sold X number of copies as casual. So which is it?

- Casual defines the WAY you play a game, not the game itself. I can MAYBE see the argument for the legitimacy of a casual gamer, but a game itself cannot be "casual." It is meaningless branding in a useless attempt by game developers and media to separate, categorize and create demographics.

- It is a sort of ignorant, lazy way of degrading certain games or gamers. Malstrom put it best - games that these snobby gamers don't like, or they claim to be beneath them, are simply branded as "casual." it is simply a politically correct code for retarded games, which to me, is jumping the gun and shows their ignorance, as well as their arrogance.