Dgc1808 said:
Um............ uuuhhhh....... Hardcore and Casual gamers both play a decent amount of games........ but Hardcore are usually better gamers???
Sorry.. I just can't get anything else out of this... |
Completely incorrect. A large part of the article's thesis is that the casual/snobcore split is much too loaded, and that it carries far too many differing definitions, to be of any value. Instead, the article focuses on a study, which shows that self-identified "casual" gamers often prefer games that do not punish the player for errors, whereas the self-identified snobcore are much more masochistic that way.To quote the last paragraph in full:
"If we want to better understand the marketplace for games, perhaps we should start thinking in terms of two very different splits. The split between game literate gamer hobbyists, and less experienced mass market players on the one hand, and players seeking punishing play (challenge-oriented, fiero-seeking players – perhaps we might call them punishers, or punishing players, that is, players seeking punishing games) and players seeking forgiving play (forgivers, or forgiving players, that is, players seeking forgiving games) on the other. Hardcore and Casual is a compromised terminology – it means too many different things, and it no longer reflects the state of the marketplace. The time has come to move forward into a new language for describing the basic splits in the audience for videogames."
That said, I can already see why the study might be flawed (self-identified? Is that really the wisest way to go about it?).
I also fervently disagree with the thesis. To continue to have divides of any sort is counter-productive, both for developers and for us gamers. There are too many games that appeal to both sides of the aisle to think that there is truly some magical divide between "us" and "them." To pretend otherwise will result in games that pander to one segment of the population by being watered-down drivel which the developer only thinks appeals to "casuals."
Instead, the article was much more persuasive in the opening, when it wrote that the mass-market who does not traditionally play games is much more interested in accessibility and flexibility, two qualities which arguably appeal just as much to traditional gamers. After all, while most of us would be willing to learn a highly complex control scheme if it let us play a great game (think Rockstar's Table Tennis), even we would much prefer to have the same depth, but with greater ease of use (think Rockstar's Table Tennis with Wii Motion Plus...).
By abolishing these ridiculous notions of some divide, I believe that developers will not only be able to make their game appeal to the vast majority of the populace, but they will also improve the quality of their games. Of course, what I just proposed takes time, thought, and talent, three T's which many developers lack, so it's a pipe dream of sorts. Still, what else is theory if not the pipe dreams of armchair thinkers?
