Nintendo defence thread

[DanneSandin]

happydolphin said:
Core and casual has been used to distinguish between a few things, hence why they are so hard to follow in a debate. To distinguish between:

1) Games that habitual gamers play and non-habitual gamers play.
2) Games that are traditional, and games that are a new type of experience.
3) Games that tend to require a sit-down period and those that are pick up and play.
4) Games that have darker themes and games that have lighter themes.
5) Games that have more violent and sexual themes, and those that do not.
6) Games that have kiddy themes and those that do not.
7) Games that evoke deeper emotions and those that do not.
8) Games with intricate art design and those that are simplistic.

The list continues.

But in the end, what matters is what the person using the word is trying to express. If Core and Casual are words that don't work for you, there's a reason. It's because they are so broad for the time being. Until people use more precise words to denote what they mean, we are left with asking the question.

Thing is, using that list what's core and what's casual fluctuate over time. SMB isn't a core game by that standard, nor is NSMB. It could be argued that Zelda SS in certain regards is a casual game... And where does that list leave strategy games? They don't really have dark themes - or light themes either. They're not that violent nor sexual... But they're not kiddy games either... And do they evoke deeper emotions? I don't think so... And quite often they have rather simplistic art styles...

I think that Veknoid made a great post about how to talk about games!!!