Erik Aston said: I don't think I wrote enough up front to put my ramblings in context... I certainly agree that casual and hardcore are bogus terms and things should be broke down in more depth. But as long as some folks are putting the term casual out there as a way to insult the new "retard" games as someone mentioned, let's examine why these games are legitimately different, and not turn things around and say all previous generations had "casual" games on the winning consoles; essentially saying anything popular is casual, which is either totally elitist or a backwards defense of the current casual boom. I have seen GTA called casual so many times in the past few weeks it was starting to bug me. The main thing about GTA that looks similar to the "retard" games is how people play short sessions just fooling around, having fun with no effort, but the root of that in GTA's case is entirely different than the "retard" games. GTAIII really followed Ocarina as the next great game of that type, as many people will tell you. And while some question what I'm saying about storytelling, that's exactly what it is. There is a set narrative to the game, and the player progresses in a set order, but the open world is designed to give the player some level of control and a feeling of even greater control. Players don't just run around doing random stuff because they can, they create an internal narrative. I don't mean literature, I just mean in a childlike play sort of way. In Ocarina, that narrative was interwoven with the actual plotpoints which progressed the game, and created a feeling of a huge, epic story from a few pages of mostly nonsense plot. In GTAIII, the world was big, complex, and wide open enough that the player's own narrative could completely take over. And if you still don't understand, think about what people were talking about when both Ocarina and GTAIII were huge. They didn't just talk about the main story points or the technical things you have to do to beat the game. They literally started telling their own stories of all the different things they tried and all the ways the game responded as they completed a game objective or a self-set objective. Certainly being "pick-up-and-play" does not make something casual. It just makes something well-designed. At least if we're going to call GTA "pick-up-and-play," when it really can only be picked up easily by a limited number of people. But the fact that the fun in the game can be accessed quickly is just good design. Only elitists confuse hurdles to having fun with fun itself. And there are games of every genre in existance which are pick-up-and-play. Again, we should look at what really seperates the "retard" games from the traditional games.

This is a much more coherent post than your OP. However, you've gone off on tangents that don't matter. Again...

First, a game cannot be casual. What it can do is: be designed for a casual demographic and appeal to the casual demographic. I think GTA4 includes both of these. Not soley of course. As I stated earlier, GTA4 was designed for anyone that appreciates video games and isn't put off by the crime and unsavory content and does a good job reaching the wide reaching demographic.

The title of this thread should have been: "Casual" does not mean "retarded."

Cause it doesn't, and I don't think I've seen or heard a single person call GTA4 retarded...

I always thought killing is a casual stuff......

Erik Aston said: Sqrl said: Erik Aston said: It isn't unlike children playing with dolls or action figures and making up their own storylines. Uhm....so its casual? Glad we agree. Fabulous. Pretty much all games tap into some sort of childlike play, so I guess everything is casual.

So to be considered "casual" it must be in some shape or form "childlike"?

 

By that definition no games are casual games. Your arguement could be made for ANY game.

 I would argue that any really popular game is a casual game... because the majority of it's purchaes are going to be from people who play games casually.  Casualness is not something inherent to a game but something bestowed opon it by the people who play it.

Casual not being "pick up and play" but "pick up, play then let sit for a long time." 

In otherwords basically a direct correlation to how much you play videogames a week.  Which is how you judge "casuals" for every other form of media. (Well movies it's usually on a monthly basis.) 

Look, it's the elitists that changed the meaning of casual into retard, and now it's those people that complain that one of "their" games is casual.

You're feeling somewhat angry because so many people call GTA a casual game, because it makes you feel like being a soccer mom playing WiiSports, while in fact a casual game is simply a game that appeals to casuals (and of course GTA appeals to "hardcore" gamers as well).

GTA is not Fire Emblem or Suikoden, it's a very casual friendly game.

Casual Gaming

The equivalent to the Gaming industry this generation of what it was to be called a Communist after WWII.

GTAIV is as casual as it is core as it is harcore. None of these categories mean anything as none have any agreed upon or solid definitions.

I could see people calling GTA4 casual in the way they call SSBB. They are both good for hardcore, core, causal, new gamers, whatever. I play GTA as a causal game where I just run around and have fun but I take SSBB very serious. It is all in how you play it. GTA has always been a game that I play for a few min when I am drunk or having a good time with people. If you want to take the game serious and complete missions, more power to you.

Erik Aston said: Sqrl said: Erik Aston said: It isn't unlike children playing with dolls or action figures and making up their own storylines. Uhm....so its casual? Glad we agree. Fabulous. Pretty much all games tap into some sort of childlike play, so I guess everything is casual.

 Again I think you're making my point.  This is why so many people dislike the term hardcore as well...because its supposed to be a game.  

GTA is casual because you can casually play 15 minutes before work, after school, or whatever suites your needs.  And if you want to use the term "hardcore" it fits that too because you can also play for 8 hours and accomplish goals and advance story earn money, progress, etc...  I don't see what is wrong with it fitting both definitions.

I won't debate which group buys it or plays it more since we have nothing to go on.  But the game is absolutely casual on many levels and for many people.  And I really think you've made the point for me. 

But in case you disagree lets use the dictionary and I'll quote all meanings:

 cas·u·al [kazh-oo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
   –adjective

1.	happening by chance; fortuitous: a casual meeting.

2.	without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.

3.	seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned: a casual, nonchalant air.

4.	appropriate for wear or use on informal occasions; not dressy: casual clothes; casual wear.

5.	irregular; occasional: a casual visitor.

6.	accidental: a casual mishap.

7.	Obsolete. uncertain.

–noun

8.	a worker employed only irregularly.

9.	a soldier temporarily at a station or other place of duty, and usually en route to another station.

 I don't think anyone is trying to make a case for numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, or 9....if you disagree let me know.  This leaves 2 & 5 which are observably and provably true about the game.

I think the problem is that you may be cought in the thinking that the label people give a game is mutually exclusive with all other labels...that is to say that you seem to think it can't be "casual "and "hardcore" at the same time...which it can. It may not be both for any single person at any one time but it can be both for different people at the same time.

Erik Aston said: I don't think I wrote enough up front to put my ramblings in context... I certainly agree that casual and hardcore are bogus terms and things should be broke down in more depth. But as long as some folks are putting the term casual out there as a way to insult the new "retard" games as someone mentioned, let's examine why these games are legitimately different, and not turn things around and say all previous generations had "casual" games on the winning consoles; essentially saying anything popular is casual, which is either totally elitist or a backwards defense of the current casual boom. I have seen GTA called casual so many times in the past few weeks it was starting to bug me. The main thing about GTA that looks similar to the "retard" games is how people play short sessions just fooling around, having fun with no effort, but the root of that in GTA's case is entirely different than the "retard" games. GTAIII really followed Ocarina as the next great game of that type, as many people will tell you. And while some question what I'm saying about storytelling, that's exactly what it is. There is a set narrative to the game, and the player progresses in a set order, but the open world is designed to give the player some level of control and a feeling of even greater control. Players don't just run around doing random stuff because they can, they create an internal narrative. I don't mean literature, I just mean in a childlike play sort of way. In Ocarina, that narrative was interwoven with the actual plotpoints which progressed the game, and created a feeling of a huge, epic story from a few pages of mostly nonsense plot. In GTAIII, the world was big, complex, and wide open enough that the player's own narrative could completely take over. And if you still don't understand, think about what people were talking about when both Ocarina and GTAIII were huge. They didn't just talk about the main story points or the technical things you have to do to beat the game. They literally started telling their own stories of all the different things they tried and all the ways the game responded as they completed a game objective or a self-set objective. Certainly being "pick-up-and-play" does not make something casual. It just makes something well-designed. At least if we're going to call GTA "pick-up-and-play," when it really can only be picked up easily by a limited number of people. But the fact that the fun in the game can be accessed quickly is just good design. Only elitists confuse hurdles to having fun with fun itself. And there are games of every genre in existance which are pick-up-and-play. Again, we should look at what really seperates the "retard" games from the traditional games.

When GTA was introduced ten years ago, it was pretty much the very definion of "casual" game, it was a game that didn't require practically any learning curve, still you had lots of things to do and you didn't need to advance in the game. And as far as i know, it still works alike (atleast Rockstar knows where the GTA success comes from).
I do agree that catering both "casual" and "hardcore" is a part of well designed game, which is a skill apparently not known to many.
Comparision to Zelda and Metroid, or Mario in that matter, in the OP was flawed, since in both cases you start from the storyline and you are required to advance in it, in order to get anything out of the game, although, the start isn't too hard for basically anyone. Wii Sports would be a better comparision for its nature, after all, it takes 80-100 hrs to complete all the platinum medals. Difference is, that the two games are so different, but the start of the game is the same in both; practically no learning required to enjoy the game.
But calling GTA a "casual" only would be wrong. I see it more like a "bridged" title.

Btw. you mentioned core audience in the OP, the industrys core audience is the "casual" audience.

I strongly believe that GTA series is not casual at all, and I strongly believe people that say it is do that so that they can downplay the real reasons they play these games (insecure behaviour).

Is there another supposedly "casual" game that is Adult Only, 18+ (or even 16+) ?
Seriously, people!

I read someone made his daughter play GTAIII: so he made his daughter (implying she's But I'm not surprised. Then again, I just came back from visiting two videogame stores, and I saw a boy that sure enough isn't 18 (and lied about his age to the sales clerk) with his mother, that came to buy GTAIV. His mother didn't bat an eyelid at this. It's not new, it was like that with GTAIII. These people clearly are the ones that played GTA III, and weren't mature enough to play it. One of my cousin which isn't even 10 years old was playing one of the GTAIII, killing innocent people and running them over, endlessly. So these people became fans, are hardcore player in the 15-30 young male demographic and of course love GTAIV, typically they are the hardcore crowd.

Sorry, but this is not a casual game. No doubt some casuals will buy it, but they don't buy it this soon after it's released. Mostly hardcore people buy games so soon after release. That's why the true casual titles start with few units sales compared to hardcore games, but they stay steady throughout the game's life. That's why Halo is not casual either. Casual titles don't see 85+% drop off after their first week of release. Several even go up in sales compared to their first week of sales.


Finally, what I find interesting, is not if GTA is casual or not, I couldn't care less. It's why hardcore players are so eager to call it casual, when they use that term to qualify poor games.
I have my guess as to why that is the case, and better understand now that the gaming industry was indeed headed to a serious crash (I'm convinced it will happen now), now that we have such a game that we can now attest will have a 10 average score. The spiral down has started now.