By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Squilliam on 29 May 2008
Edit Thread
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.


Holy crap! Thats so like wrong. Economics talks about opportunity cost in terms of the value of the next best choice forgone. If you make more money on one game than another you have produced MORE not less economic value and satisfaction from your efforts. From this increased economic value you can then choose to use those extra resources to tap additional market segments than you had initially. You're confusing your own personal beliefs with economics and Adam Smith is asking you to stop please.



Tease.