What casualized games

what casualized games

Other urls found in this thread:

undertheradar.military.com/2016/05/6-military-video-games-used-to-train-troops-on-the-battlefield/
theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/playing-war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/
versiondaily.com/how-the-u-s-uses-video-games-for-military-training/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator
vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality-military/
army.mil/article/84453/virtual_reality_used_to_train_soldiers_in_new_training_simulator
americasarmy.com/
science.howstuffworks.com/virtual-military.htm
keithburgun.net/interactive-forms/
bidmc.org/YourHealth/Health-Notes/SurgicalInnovations/Advances/VideoGames.aspx
cbsnews.com/news/video-gamers-make-good-surgeons/
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html
electronics.howstuffworks.com/do-video-games-improve-hand-eye-coordination.htm
jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The consumerbase growing from hobbyists

I wish autism-tier depth became the next big thing in games. Imagine an RPG that made Baldurs Gate character creation menu look simple.

the rising cost of development

You did

Streaming services

Casuals

SJWs, nu male hipsters and women

Games were always casual

As much as I hate SJWs, I feel like they didn't start to exert a huge influence until 2012 or later, while games have been going casual since at least the Wii.

IT WAS ME.

Its a lot of different factors, the industry has just gotten to such a point thats a mammoth compared to what it used to be. It stopped being a niche hobby for nerds in the late 90s and then steadily changed. Your average person plays vidya, and casual games appeal to the average person.

consoles

capitalism

instead of games being about challenge and expression, which are activities that ultimately require skill and self-inspection, games have become amusement rides that take no effort beyond paying the 2-ticket price.

Dark souls and their bitchnigger fanbase. Bunch of soft pussies probably never played devil may cry 3 on dante must die or the original xbox era ninja gaiden.

>dude lmao I memorized the specific way to kill this boss

>since at least the Wii

look at the highest selling PS2 games

The size of the market

Unironically Steam.

SJWs are not a cause of casualization but a symptom of it

Ironically this

People like this guy

>SJWs are not a cause of casualization but a symptom of it.
This, honestly. The market expanded so much that now devs feel the need to make games as inclusive and inoffensive as possible. Examples include: Overwatch.

nintendoodoo with the wiishit

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 17.5 million
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec 14.89 million
Grand Theft Auto III 14.5 million
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 12 million
Gran Turismo 4 10.06 million shipped
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty 7 million
Final Fantasy X 6.6 million
Final Fantasy XII 5.2 million
Kingdom Hearts 4.68 million
Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King 4.44 million
What am I meant to be seeing here?

This, it went from works where artists put their heart and soul into something they enjoyed to just white noise and eye candy, normalfaggotry is a disease.

>Game budgets getting way too high, reducing the drive for developers to take any risks at all
>>Mobile gaming/Casual gaming practices like micro-transactions leech their way into full price games as a result of above, as devs desperately try to make their unsustainable business models work
>Everyone having good enough bandwidth to play online means everyone wants a yearly online game to play with their friends. This make huge sales and encourage other games to follow suit.
>Barrier to entry lowered at tech became cheaper and easier to set up, with wages increasing too. Most people can afford a decent T.V/Console with a few days work these days.
>Enough time has passed that it's no longer something people don't understand. Basically everyone has played a video game or used a computer at this point, so it doesn't seem alien
>Game design by committee/focus testing leaves companies believing they wouldn't make money on games which challenge the player too much
>Prostitution of the gaming media at the hands of publishers means the average consumer doesn't have as much information as the average Sup Forumstard, and so makes poor choices or supports bad practices.

(((Lord Gaben))) is magnanimous enough to offer frequent discounts on non-casual games.

Now as for (((EA))), (((Ubisoft))), and (((Todd Howard))), you have a) incomplete games that you need to buy in segments, b) the same game run through the find-and-replace tool, and c) the same game that's been out for 10 years ported and polished

I'd be inclined to agree, but I don't see how the issues you've raised negatively effect a game like Overwatch. It has a myriad of issues but I don't really see how being inclusive or inoffensive has harmed the core game.

unironically this
and this
/thread

>instead of games being about challenge and expression, which are activities that ultimately require skill and self-inspection
>retards actually believe this

Dark Souls

>challenge does not require skill
You don't even know what the word means then. Hint: if you play through a game and don't reach a "you lose" or "game over" screen even once, you're not being challenged.

challenge -> lose -> learn from loss -> improve knowledge/skill -> challenge -> win

Sup Forums has melted your brain friend. I think that you should either see a neurosurgeon or possibly take ginseng supplements, if you're into that homeopath shit

nothing, there are still plenty of SHMUPs, fighting games etc. but Sup Forums is full of brain dead retards who think they're hot shit

It mainly affects the characters. Every character is some soulless archetype that doesn't try to do anything that might offend somebody or be controversial. The cast is a perfectly measured mix of characters designed to have the absolute maximum appeal without taking any risks, and as a result, without being interesting at all. I do believe the gameplay is also impacted by the new casual atmosphere. Overwatch plays like a combination between a very low skill ceiling moba and your average shooter. Without much room to improve or much to aspire to, the game becomes very samey very quickly.

Still trying to detox. Pray for me, user.

I'm not gonna touch on your point regarding over simplification being an issue in OW as I agree, it's Diet MOBA with shooter mechanics. I was more focused on if the character design being negatively effected by the 'SJW's' is a detriment to the game in any real sense, and I don't think it is. I think the diversity of characters was for sure to increase market appeal, but what would the alternative be? I've never played a game with such a focus on a large roster than strives to make every character ground breaking and totally original. Sometimes doing a well established trope well fits a game to a good enough degree and I think OW hits that mark. It might not be groundbreaking or even particularly to my taste, but it's not offensively sterile either. It's functional, not obviously politically motivated (as I think the motivation for such a diverse cast was financial) and it doesn't negitively impact the game when taken as a whole. It's dull if you treat OW as the story of any individual character, it's just fine if you treat it as an entire product. I see your point, I just don't think it's contextualized very well.

videogames have always been casual entertainment.

This. Everyone loves video games

...

Video games were never a secret club you dumb fuck, but Sup Forums was.

and what is hardcore entertainment? non-joke answer only please, don't say something like "Roman gladiator fight"

Lions tearing apart slaves, no gladiators required

Broader appeal = more sales = throbbing investor cocks

I guess you could argue something like creating art or something like chess maybe? Something which is entertaining, but it more about challenging yourself then simple escapism. There's even music which is unpleasant to listen to by design, entertaining but not necessarily enjoyable.

vidya got more and more popular

Chess is a game, which puts it in the same exact family as video games. Are you saying that a virtual representation of chess (like Lichess.org) is inherently casual whereas the physical manifestation of chess is hardcore?

Not at all, my point wasn't in relation to if video games are inherently casual. I was simply trying to define the difference between causal entertainment and non-casual entertainment, I think it's in how it challenges you. In my example of chess, it wouldn't matter if it were a chess board or Chessmaster.

This guy.

Right, I agree, so to return to
the next question is "are a substantial amount of video games challenging?"

I mean if we're looking at the gross total of games, including NES and old PC games, I think there are quite a lot of challenging games.
Recently, with all of the walking sim shit and the consistent auto-aiming red-jelly-inducing cover-hiding casual FPS? Not so sure honestly.
Then again the people who made Dear Esther recently shut down their studio because they weren't making enough money to justify the property rent. Video games might be recorrecting themselves right now as we speak. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic

This, games used to be hard so that you had to pay more money for retries at the arcade
They didn't bother changing their design when they started porting things to home consoles

The End.

Broader audience.

A fucking DVD player.

I think our definition of challenging might be different. I don't mean mechanically hard or difficult or whatever, I mean not easy to get enjoyment from at face value. Requiring some investment from the player past mechanics. I think you could have a very easy game that's challenging or a very hard game that's casual in this respect. If you want an example of challenging entertainment, listen to Hothead by Death Grips. There's entertainment to be found there but it's not really nice to listen to or enjoyable or whatever.

>>everyone else in this thread but I'm not autistic enough to reply to everyone

Hi. They're GAMES. They've been fucking casual since day one.

The only thing that's recent is the idea of "hardcore gamers" that was born out of the manufactured edgy and cool marketing campaigns of the late 90s and early 2000s.

No one in their right mind thought that they were hardcore because they hung out in arcades or were the first kids on their block to play Doom on PC. They were just having fun.

>Hi. They're GAMES. They've been fucking casual since day one.
Wrong. The first games in human history were split into 3 general patterns

>1. War/strategy, like chess or hnefatavl. These were used by the nobility to train for actual war.
>2. Sports, which are displays of physical prowess and skill. Although prototype versions have existed ever since Uggthok could play "stick and ball" in his cave, sports truly came to prominence during the colonial period, which was also a time of intense nationalism. Sports were used to prove that English/French/German/etc. were the "master race," no joke. The societal context is staggering.
3. Gambling games. The most casual of these three, gambling is also quite ancient. The Chinese had Keno, Greece had dice games, Arabs had a game like Pachisi, and Egpyt had Senet. This is really the only category that fits your description.

So get fucked

*BLING BLING*

WAHOO!

>no argument
Not surprised, you don't really know enough about this topic to comment.

Halo 2?

not an argument.

video games are video games, there is no staggering societal context and they're not used to train the ancient Chinese nobility for war lmao

All games are casual, it's consumable media and a toy put together. When someone says "hardcore games", it's equivilent to "hardcore TV watching", or "hardcore listening to music" or "hardcore boardgames."
All gamers are casuals... we're talking about games here.

>there is no staggering societal context and they're not used to train the ancient Chinese nobility for war lmao
yeah i wonder

undertheradar.military.com/2016/05/6-military-video-games-used-to-train-troops-on-the-battlefield/

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/playing-war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/

versiondaily.com/how-the-u-s-uses-video-games-for-military-training/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator

vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality-military/

army.mil/article/84453/virtual_reality_used_to_train_soldiers_in_new_training_simulator

americasarmy.com/

science.howstuffworks.com/virtual-military.htm

Bye you uneducated cuck.

>All games are casual, it's consumable media and a toy put together.
Wrong

keithburgun.net/interactive-forms/

lmao you think that Super Mario Bros on the NES or Ghosts and Goblins was used to train kids for the Iraq War?

Video games have been around for 4 decades and it's only in recent years that VR and realistic sims were put in place for military training, and it accounts for a teeny tiny amount of their overall training.

This picture is retarded, it doesn't allude to the fact that video games themselves can often have no actual goal much like a toy. Anyways, games are toys and media. Of course they're casual. You can be a championship DOTA player in a year, or come in second at Evo as a rookie, both have happened.

>Pseudoscience.
no thnks..

muh wider audience.

Unironically.

Trannys

Films and cartoons in WWII were used to train and inform troops.

People didn't circlejerk about being hardcore tv watchers lmao.

Nowhere in any other hobby do people call themselves H4RDC0R3 and lament about le casuals. They'll call themselves passionate and aficionados and enthusiasts and whatever else. "hardcore" is such a wannabe teenager thing to call yourself.

Only the most autistic games have no goal, like minecraft.

One-off exceptions do not negate the premise.

If a "game" doesn't have a goal then it's not a game.

>lmao you think that Super Mario Bros on the NES or Ghosts and Goblins was used to train kids for the Iraq War?
Yes because hand-eye coordination is a skill.

bidmc.org/YourHealth/Health-Notes/SurgicalInnovations/Advances/VideoGames.aspx

cbsnews.com/news/video-gamers-make-good-surgeons/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html

electronics.howstuffworks.com/do-video-games-improve-hand-eye-coordination.htm

>Films and cartoons in WWII were used to train and inform troops.
>People didn't circlejerk about being hardcore tv watchers lmao.
Give me one example where a "casual filmgoer" has watched a WW2 military film. I'll wait.

>pseudoscience
let me refer you to
>All games are casual, it's consumable media and a toy put together. When someone says "hardcore games", it's equivilent to "hardcore TV watching", or "hardcore listening to music" or "hardcore boardgames."

Next time don't rely on an anonymous quote as "scientific" evidence

>it doesn't allude to the fact that video games themselves can often have no actual goal much like a toy.
Let me drop this atom bomb on you bro
Marketplaces like Steam, and even brick and mortar stores have stocked non-games next to games since forever, and unfortunately the average consumer has lapped it up.

If the "game" you are playing doesn't have a fail state (win/loss), it's not actually a game. That's okay, it's a toy. Lots of titles are, especially simulation style ones like Simcity, and it's possible to have fun with them. But they're not games

jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/

Juul has a lot of good writing that's worth reading if you're interested

How the fuck did Gran Turismo sell so much, I've never met anyone that plays those games

I don't know why Sup Forums bitches about casuals so much, every time I play with you guys you turn out to be massive scrubs.

...

>Yes because hand-eye coordination is a skill.

I like how you always go off about things that I didn't say.

Hand-eye coordination is a thing, yes, I never said it wasn't.

You know what also improves it? Not video games.

You seem to think that video games have been making surgeons and soldiers and general for centuries and millennia and all it takes for them to be so is a few hours of Pac-Man lmao.

>Give me one example where a "casual filmgoer" has watched a WW2 military film. I'll wait.

You can watch Private SNAFU short films on Looney Tunes DVDs, or just on youtube.

>3-way no true Scotsman.
Sorry guys. They're games -- or rather, "videogames."
If it's a videogame, it's a videogame regardless of what artificial barriers are there to dilute their meaning and their existence modifies the meaning of "videogame" over just "game."
Also them being autistic or not doesn't change the facts I'm afraid, despite the no-true-Scotsman.

>I like how you always go off about things that I didn't say.
Yes because I'm going to the core of the issue. Games are about training skills. Go back to my previous post, the military application of chess. It was used to train young princes to think strategically about tactical engagements. Not everyone who plays a video game is a prince; the average gamer is probably a mook in the army. That's why games like America's Army exists, to bridge the gap between passive hand-eye skill and actual military-tactical situations.

It's not 1:1. It's an abstraction that serves as training to some greater need. A lot of activities you do during your day can factor into employment too, like having a hobby such as Youtube video editing. Fuck around with it enough and you'll develop passive skills, which you can then apply to a real job. Hand-eye is one of many from video games.

>You know what also improves it? Not video games.
Yet it's one of the most effective. The key is abstraction. You know what improves surgery? Actually operating on human flesh, or at least animal flesh. Guess what's not ethical for a 13 year old to do? Mutilate animals.

>You seem to think that video games have been making surgeons and soldiers and general for centuries and millennia and all it takes for them to be so is a few hours of Pac-Man lmao.
Nice deflection but it's not going to work. I already taught your nigger-skull the 3 origins of games, one of which (gambling) is casual. The other two were borne from extant circumstances in which a community needed something (training) and got it through games. "Leisure without study is death-a tomb for the living person," said Seneca.

There are non casual options to take just like there always were.

I did, sorry I thought it was funny at the time.

>link academic article about definition of games
>get called "no true scotsman"
Dig your own grave and bury yourself, seriously.

>No one in their right mind thought that they were hardcore because they hung out in arcades
You don't seem to understand what people mean by hardcore gamer. No one thinks they are some chad because they are a hardcore gamer. It applys to people who take gaming more serious by wanting a level a challange or difficulty

N-NANI?!

>ctrl+f mw2
>0 results

For real? Is Sup Forums made up of kids born after 2000 these days? It was Modern Warfare 2. That's what kicked off the "we want to appeal to a wider audience" trend.

>casual
>hardcore
It's the difference between someone who drives their car to work everyone and some greasemonkey gearhead who spends his evening hood open cranking wrenches.

90%+ of people play games, but a smaller subsection takes them seriously to the point of propelling them to an art form or advanced form of media. I won't judge you if you play Farmville and mobile games, but if you're not interested in pushing the medium to its max, you should leave.

I think most of Sup Forums is honestly pretty casual.

>Article is undone by cogent examples.
Sorry man, the article needs to be rewritten to account for new information, I can't jive with this Epimenides paradox shit:
>All videogames must have win-loss state.
>Minecraft is a game.
>Minecraft doesn't have a win-loss state.
This isn't some one-off phenomenon either, tons of videogames have no victory state.

Bad analogy.
1. Driver and mechanic is a user-technician dicotomy, it's different. A better example would have been a commuter and a race car driver. Your example would be better used as a gamer-developer analog.
2. Percieved casuals can still put in the same hours as "hardcore gamers" and spend the same "effort" of pressing buttons. There's really no percievable difference between the two. That's a lot different then a guy buried under a car versus a guy that won't even drive stick.

Playstation

The intrinsic desire of all industries:
to maximize profit.

If a person can find a way to appeal to a broader demographic than they will, the alternative would be leaving money on the table.
If a person can get away with offering less than they will offer less.
This lets them cut cost and increase production.

People want the call of duty audience
To make the next "water-cooler"

The boundaries of the average consumer's apathy will always be tested.
The average consumer allows DLC and Microtransactions.
They allow hardware to have exclusive titles while anyone should be able to see how effortlessly retarded that is when it comes to a form of entertainment.

If they were just a bit more apathetic than the Xbone would still have that up-its-own-ass level of DRM.

>nowhere in any other hobby
That's just plain wrong. Pretty much most stuff people are into have an eleme like that.

...

>They allow hardware to have exclusive titles while anyone should be able to see how effortlessly retarded that is when it comes to a form of entertainment.
Honestly, you're kind of an idiot.
First of all, device manufacturers don't pay for movie development -- unless of course you count Netflix and Prime, the two juggernauts of all media entertainment right now and consider their subscription a product. This also existed before you were born with music; it was referred to as a "record deal."
Second, tons of the exclusives in question wouldn't exist without manufacturer money.