| Turkish said: No they would not have called them casual,what exactly is there casual about FZero and Metroid? And I know you made a huge long thread about what is casual and hardcore in your eyes. I dont care whats casual or hardcore in your eyes, its all very simple. Its not a matter of it being popular or not. To me casual games are dance games, educational games, motion games like Kinectimals, Wii Sports etc. By your logic hardcore games like Folklore for PS3 that nobody played is a casual game too. |
I said that people would CALL them casual, not that they were. As I pointed out, those terms don't make sense... but my assertion was about what people would call them.
Tell me, what distinguishes F-Zero, in terms of "casual" vs "hardcore", from Need for Speed: Nitro? Nitro was mocked as a "casual" Need for Speed title, when it was released. Most people consider Excite Truck to be borderline casual, with the only thing stopping it from really just being called casual is its steep learning curve.
I said nothing about Metroid. If you have a look, I said F-Zero and Star Fox. Although I wouldn't be surprised if, if Metroid had released as a 2D platformer in this generation, people would have called it "casual", just because it's a platformer and not gory.
Star Fox was a simplistic game where you fly around in a 2D manner in a moving space, and shoot at rocks and ships, and collect powerups. Similar modern IPs are often dismissed as "Casual".
And I said nothing about "hardcore" and "casual" having anything to do with popularity - indeed, I quite specifically said that there's no such thing as hardcore and casual games AT ALL. And what you have just done, by saying "to me", is demonstrate just WHY those terms don't make any sense. You define "casual" games as "dance games, motion games, and educational games". Person X defines them as "colourful games intended for kids". Person Y defines them as "games that you play in short bursts". Person Z defines them as "games in any genre I don't care for" (although they wouldn't put it that way). Person Omega defines them as "games that appeal to the mainstream", while Person Alpha defines them as "games that don't appeal to the enthusiast".
You ask about 4000 people whether Mario Kart 7 is casual, and about two thirds will say yes, and one third will say no. I'm not making this up, by the way - this is based specifically on reviews on the 3DS's eShop. Ask 700 people about Super Pokemon Rumble (Pokemon Rumble Blast in North America), and it's almost a 50/50 split. How can such terms make sense when such extreme disagreement happens?
The problem is that the terms don't make sense at all. There's no agreed meaning, there's no rationality behind the terms, there are more appropriate terms to describe each possible meaning of the terms, and the terms are primarily used as either derogatory or as a way to talk of a game as though it is "better" than another game, purely because of the style of gameplay appealing to that person more.
