Why "casual" gamers are good for the industry plus issues with fanboys

[bdbdbd]

Picko said:

Sky Render said:
@Picko

The simpler a viewpoint is, the less accurate it tends to be. You are viewing "casual games" solely in terms of the values of "non-casual games". That is to say, games which fit the values of the "old" market. The "new" market values are different, and thus foreign and unknown/unimportant to most of those who follow the values of the "old" market. To a disciple of the "old" values, the "new" market games look to be horrible since they don't fit into their idea of what a game is "supposed" to be.

While there are games which do fit your general description, that description falls short in accounting for titles such as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, and so forth. These games are not lacking in "quality", save when looked at only by the primary "old" values: graphics, gameplay depth, and complexity. In these values, they are nowhere near ideal. But in the primary "new" values of intuitiveness, gameplay quality, and pick-up-and-play, they excel.

On the contrary. Whilst I'm impressed by talk of "values" I'm reminded of the fact that they are simply fancy terms designed to complicate matters. I on the other hand would rather talk economics, which are themselves a set of fancy terms that complicate matters but luckily also have relevance.

The quality of a game is almost completely objective unlike the likes of movies and music. Hence, games are almost reviewed as "great", "good" or "bad" (check Rotten Tomatoes for proof and comparisons to movies) instead of the largely mixed reviews often associated with most movie and music releases. This by itself suggests that your notion of new and old "value" systems is largely a creation that does not reflect facts. Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii are all games that got solid to great reviews - which would surely be contrary to your imaginary "value" system if it existed. Videogame reviewing takes place from a techical point of view, rather than an artistic point of view - there is therefore no value system involved despite what some might think or desire.

 However, I digressed here is where the issue is and this is where my point stands (and shall continue to stand as it's unambiguously correct). True casual games designed to appeal to non-gamers or very casual gamers (therefore not including the likes of SMG, Halo 3, GTA IV etc that must necessarily have casual appeal) are on average low quality affairs and take resources away from other potential uses, its what economists call opportunity cost. In simple terms, every time a Nintendo makes a Wii Sports or Wii Fit they could've instead uses those resources on a new Mario, Zelda, Metroid - or god forbid a new high quality franchise. Every time someone makes a "High School Musical" game or a cheap movie tie-in they are using resources that could've been used to make something else, something potentially better. Therefore, its no surprise that long time gamers hate so called "casual" games as they use up scarce resources best used elsewhere.

Afterall, what do you think of Wii Fit as a game if it cost you a new Zelda or Mario game? Probably not as highly as you do when you consider it in isolation.

WTF? This was basically nothing but BS. Seeing reviews with basically same rating tells you that the reviewers are the same audience with same preferences. Once again it's just a system that makes itself happen. Which makes the whole review system subjective. Technical terms are taken into consideration in movie and music reviews too. They all depend on the context. Some "super secret special troops marine" jumping out of nowhere, shooting everyone in sight, in the middle of a romantic movie, would be a technical flaw, just as non-logical story. But, then there's comedy, where the previous flaws aren't necessarily flaws at all. If a movie reviewer, that likes romantic movies, reviews an action movie, the action movie propably isn't going to score high. It all depends on the context. Besides, as you tried to claim, that game reviewers rate games by technical standards, they're going to miss the whole point of the game. Whether it's technically perfect or not, doesn't tell you if the game is good or bad. As Rubang mentioned Tetris, it's technically not up to any standards, so it has to be rated either by a) by its own standards b) is the game good, when "a" is basically the same as "b". As for the "non-gamers" or "casual" games; could you show an example about a game that fits what you described? The reason for the bad "casual" games is, that the devs make a bad game and call it "casual", instead of making good "casual" game. But as an example of non-gamers/"casual" games, that are good: Brain Training More Brain Training Nintendogs Wii Sports Wii Play Wii Fit Mario Party 8 Then games that are the same category that i haven't played, but are generally considered as good: Guitar Hero (series) Singstar (series) Sims (series) The thing is, that personal prefences vary, for example, instead of creating new GTA, Rockstar could have made a new IP that is actually good.