@ Op your post does not make any sense. How can anyone give you an answer.

yushire said: "C. Everytime there has been a change in the industry, it's always headed towards the casual/non-gaming market. The "hardcore" today are the casuals/non-gamers that were brought to gaming during the PSX era. Cinematics in a game? Oh boy, that's like interactive movie! Cool, i want that game! While the "hardcore" of that time (i'm in that demographic) weren't so happy with the direction. Just look at PS2:s best selling games, bridged games like GT and GTA, Singstar still in the best sellers lists, Guitar Hero sells million on every platform etc..." THIS IS... what I want to know about. There are many forums saying that the first year of PSX and PS2 wasnt good either and they say when casual gamers are corncerned the PSX and the PS2 start casual gaming. Sorry even at my age I dunno the gaming history I only knew it from the net. BTW, we have PSX before and we still have a PS2 but we didnt buy it in its first year of launch unlike our Wii. We buy it this year we buy the PSX and the PS2 3 years after its launch care anyone tell me about it, please?

Well saying that PSX and PS2 started casual gaming isn't actually correct. If we start from Atari 2600, it was a casual console (using the terms we tend to use today), since it introduced a lot new people to gaming, while Atari 5200 (successor to 2600) was a hardcore console, since it catered the 2600 audience. NES was a casual console, for introducing new people to gaming, when SNES catered the NES audience it was a hardcore console. PSX again introduced new people to gaming, being a casual console, while PS2 was hardcore for catering the PSX audience. Wii is a casual console, because of the new audience, and Wiis successor will be hardcore when it caters the Wii audience. Of course, there are different meanings for "hardcore", but not a one meaning which would define what it actually means, but the cycle i described is how it goes. So, there isn't "hardcore" or "casual", more like "old audience" and "new audience". The old audience defines itself as hardcore and new audience as casual. Now, the reason why you hear people saying that PSX introduced "casual gaming", is because gamers prior to NES are very rare in the videogame forums (actually this is the only forum i visit where i see such. Like Mike Intellivision), who would be saying that NES introduced "casual gaming". And people prior to Atari generation are even more rare, not to talk about people prior to Pong who would call videogaming "casual entertainment" (ie. waste of time). Listen to your parents opininions and you get the picture. The reason you bought Wii first year, is because it had games you wanted to play, when PSX and PS2 didn't have in same time after its launch. It's as simple as that. I didn't quite understood the question you asked, but i hope my reply was sufficient.

Please understand that at least 70% of console owners at the end of a gen are casual, with casual meaning they play maybe once a week.

Suddenly since the Wii is a big success "casual" seems to have become some kind of magic word, mostly used to describe the Wii in a negative fashion. What is "ignored" is that the PS2 userbase could only become that big because of casuals.

Lots of different types of casuals that is.
Just like in music people buy Britney Spears and people go watch the latest Bruckheimer movie, game-casuals are the regular people.

Some people say that GTA is the epitome of hardcore. Of course this is wrong. It is one of the most casual titles around, together with Madden.

Families with kids, students, young professionals etc all are part of this casual group. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Wii userbase consist mainly of soccer-moms and retired people. Yes Nintendo did an outstanding job to sell their console to them as well, but the majority of owners is male and under 30.

bdbdbd said: yushire said: "C. Everytime there has been a change in the industry, it's always headed towards the casual/non-gaming market. The "hardcore" today are the casuals/non-gamers that were brought to gaming during the PSX era. Cinematics in a game? Oh boy, that's like interactive movie! Cool, i want that game! While the "hardcore" of that time (i'm in that demographic) weren't so happy with the direction. Just look at PS2:s best selling games, bridged games like GT and GTA, Singstar still in the best sellers lists, Guitar Hero sells million on every platform etc..." THIS IS... what I want to know about. There are many forums saying that the first year of PSX and PS2 wasnt good either and they say when casual gamers are corncerned the PSX and the PS2 start casual gaming. Sorry even at my age I dunno the gaming history I only knew it from the net. BTW, we have PSX before and we still have a PS2 but we didnt buy it in its first year of launch unlike our Wii. We buy it this year we buy the PSX and the PS2 3 years after its launch care anyone tell me about it, please?   Well saying that PSX and PS2 started casual gaming isn't actually correct. If we start from Atari 2600, it was a casual console (using the terms we tend to use today), since it introduced a lot new people to gaming, while Atari 5200 (successor to 2600) was a hardcore console, since it catered the 2600 audience. NES was a casual console, for introducing new people to gaming, when SNES catered the NES audience it was a hardcore console. PSX again introduced new people to gaming, being a casual console, while PS2 was hardcore for catering the PSX audience. Wii is a casual console, because of the new audience, and Wiis successor will be hardcore when it caters the Wii audience. Of course, there are different meanings for "hardcore", but not a one meaning which would define what it actually means, but the cycle i described is how it goes. So, there isn't "hardcore" or "casual", more like "old audience" and "new audience". The old audience defines itself as hardcore and new audience as casual. Now, the reason why you hear people saying that PSX introduced "casual gaming", is because gamers prior to NES are very rare in the videogame forums (actually this is the only forum i visit where i see such. Like Mike Intellivision), who would be saying that NES introduced "casual gaming". And people prior to Atari generation are even more rare, not to talk about people prior to Pong who would call videogaming "casual entertainment" (ie. waste of time). Listen to your parents opininions and you get the picture. The reason you bought Wii first year, is because it had games you wanted to play, when PSX and PS2 didn't have in same time after its launch. It's as simple as that. I didn't quite understood the question you asked, but i hope my reply was sufficient.

No its alright thats what I want to know. So do you mean theres no such thing as hardcore and casual gamers then? No wonder I like the Wii even most people says its not a hardcore console and the only people buy the Wiis are non gamers, the casuals and kids and moms.

 

BengaBenga said: Please understand that at least 70% of console owners at the end of a gen are casual, with casual meaning they play maybe once a week. Suddenly since the Wii is a big success "casual" seems to have become some kind of magic word, mostly used to describe the Wii in a negative fashion. What is "ignored" is that the PS2 userbase could only become that big because of casuals. Lots of different types of casuals that is. Just like in music people buy Britney Spears and people go watch the latest Bruckheimer movie, game-casuals are the regular people. Some people say that GTA is the epitome of hardcore. Of course this is wrong. It is one of the most casual titles around, together with Madden. Families with kids, students, young professionals etc all are part of this casual group. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Wii userbase consist mainly of soccer-moms and retired people. Yes Nintendo did an outstanding job to sell their console to them as well, but the majority of owners is male and under 30.

Well the word "casual" is todays "does what Nintendon't", while "HD graphichs" seems to equal "blast processing" (i was going to put "4D gaming", but since it only lives to make fun of Sony, it won't do). What i have earlier posted to this thread, why do you think they would play only once a week? If there are games that interest them, why not play more often? Especially when games like Wii Sports and Wii Play are "pick up and play" -type of games, when you don't need to manage time for playing. GTA games are the same as Super Mario games, meaning bridged games. Sports simulators are all casual games, which will do better when you have easy to access input, but even when talking about casual games, we need to remember that those are games that the hardcore can play too. @yushire: That's what i'm saying. If we look at what the industry is meaning with hardcore, casual and non-gamer, they are talking about existing gamers that use a lot of money in games, existing/new gamers that don't use a lot of money in games and existing/new gamers that don't use money at all, or so little that it doesn't have significant, if at all, impact to industry (ie. the people that play Solitaire or a random flash-game with their computer). Then the fanboys don't understand the classification (now, i count in the journalists who make their stories/reviews to fanboys) and talk about "hardcore games/gamers" and "casual games/gamers", when you can play Brain Training, Nintendogs, or any other new audience games even more than the "hardcore" plays their shooters and use more money to the games you prefer, while being "casual gamer", than the "hardcore" spends to their preferred games.

I have at least 20 wii games right now, including all of the popular ones mentioned above. I can't believe Excite Truck doesn't get more love -- sure, it was a launch game, but it is one of the most fun games I've played in a long time.  Maybe I'm not a casual Wii owner.

Sadly, I also got a DS in November or so, picked up 10 or 11 games for it, and then decided never to play them.  So I've got about 11 nearly-unplayed DS games, including NSMB and Phantom Hour Glass.

yushire said: OK you all exactly have a point, but thats not what Im informed about, the Wii are for casuals even New York Times have a article about it. Even the core gaming sites says it even EGM magazines says it even analysts so why all these people say the same thing?

I'm casual?  Come on, I play with my Wii every night.

Words Of Wisdom said: yushire said: I'm casual? Come on, I play with my Wii every night.

 I am SO going to quote you out of context one day, and it will be delicious.

Back to the topic, bdbdbd has a great grasp on the situation. Remember that the enthusiasts who cover gaming often are "journalists" in the same sense as the folks who write your newspaper, or show up on your T.V. Far too often, they're fans whose love for their hobby has taken them to elitist extremes (think movie and food critics). Since there aren't any professional gaming news sites, these guys' voices are all we hear. And if there's one thing a snob hates, its seeing his hobby cater to people unlike him or herself. As a result, the lunatic fringe makes itself seem like the majority of voices. Just remember though that just because these guys say something, it doesn't automatically mean its true, especially if they feel the need to repeat their "wisdom" over and over again.

Words Of Wisdom said: I'm casual?  Come on, I play with my Wii every night.

i bet you do

Being a casual doesn't necessarily mean that they never buy games.
I know quite a few casual gamers that barely play their Wii once a week and yet own about 7-10 games.

Apart from that, the Wii should not be considered a casual only console when it has plenty of challenging games hardcore players will enjoy.