Dude I defined it for you already, when will you be satisfied? CoD, Halo and Mario are cross-cutters, happy?

I'm not talking to you. I'm trying to illustrate a point with Mr Puggsly, and if you learn from that fine, but I'm talking to Puggsly first.

Yes you can. Casual and core is basically industry lingo for the audience geared for.

If a developer says they're working on a casual game. Safe bet they aren't working on the next Call of Duty.

Screw you

Not the general "you", I mean you, specifically, Mr Puggsly. Define what a "core" game is for me, please.

Your piping in and trying to answer questions for Mr Puggsly isn't helping anything. If I'm going to illustrate the point to him, then it has to be according to an answer that he gives, because his answer may well be different from yours or mine. Do you see?

Not the general "you", I mean you, specifically, Mr Puggsly. Define what a "core" game is for me, please.

Core game is not a word in the dictionary so I don't have a simple definition for you. Its more like a theory that's supported by trends.

Games like L4D, Halo, Uncharted, MGS, fall into the core category. Not just by me, but the industry.

But there is a simple definition for it, though it's not an objective one! Nor is this an objective one.

You know, Nintendo doesn't try to define casual or core game, they just do it with customers. They're pretty plain about it, too! Core customers are people who game regularly and who buy games regularly. Trying to define games as core or casual, according to those metrics, is fallacious, because casual and core customers alike buy all sorts of different games depending on their individual taste.

But then, it's also acknowledged (even by Nintendo, here) that these metrics don't work perfectly, because there are some casual customers who are core players, such as the people who play Angry Birds for an hour a day or the people who only buy FIFA every year but play it religiously and are like some kind of futbol machines.

You see what I'm saying, though. Applying that kind of label to games implies that kind of label for customers, and it's not that easy. Young children are some of the heaviest gamers in the world. Women in their 20-40s often have very eclectic, core values that run the gamut.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're trying to say is that there are high-investment games and low-investment games. Double Fine's Happy Action Theater is a game about play, and Farmville doesn't require much to get the grips of. They can be played religiously, and there are definitely core players for these games, but they are made to be low-investment by nature. Right? I think you mean that the DS did not manage to sell high-investment games. THat the size of it?

But there is a simple definition for it, though it's not an objective one! Nor is this an objective one.

You know, Nintendo doesn't try to define casual or core game, they just do it with customers. They're pretty plain about it, too! Core customers are people who game regularly and who buy games regularly. Trying to define games as core or casual, according to those metrics, is fallacious, because casual and core customers alike buy all sorts of different games depending on their individual taste.

But then, it's also acknowledged (even by Nintendo, here) that these metrics don't work perfectly, because there are some casual customers who are core players, such as the people who play Angry Birds for an hour a day or the people who only buy FIFA every year but play it religiously and are like some kind of futbol machines.

You see what I'm saying, though. Applying that kind of label to games implies that kind of label for customers, and it's not that easy. Young children are some of the heaviest gamers in the world. Women in their 20-40s often have very eclectic, core values that run the gamut.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're trying to say is that there are high-investment games and low-investment games. Double Fine's Happy Action Theater is a game about play, and Farmville doesn't require much to get the grips of. They can be played religiously, and there are definitely core players for these games, but they are made to be low-investment by nature. Right? I think you mean that the DS did not manage to sell high-investment games. THat the size of it?