MWEB GameZone writes: "Casual gamers have a ton of untapped potential skill and competitive drive just waiting to be unleashed. Unfortunately, game developers do not see the potential in the casual player base and are therefore making their games easier in order to attract more players."
In a new interview with IGN, Shigeru Miyamoto talks about designing Super Nintendo World, his opinion on video game stories, and why Nintendo is more than just a game company now.
At least the onecin hollywood is kond of a let down...too small, 1 ride, and 1 restaurant...lots of cool moving things, but once you see it thats it...kids could have fun if the lines dont ruin it.
BLG writes, "Alongside the Wolfenstein and DOOM franchises, there are the Quake games. Known for fast-paced and insane multiplayer deathmatch action, there was a time Quake was best known for its single-player design.
That all changed as time passed (i.e., after Quake 3 Arena). Multiplayer deathmatches were never the same.
As other FPS games leaned more into improved narrative and storytelling, id Software delivered a genre-defining multiplayer experience.
Quake 3, and the iterations, will always be one of the best multiplayer series releases.
As far as campaigns, I think 1 and 4 are great, but that 2 was garbage.
Quake Champions was a joke on and didn't capitalize on much of anything that made the series great.
COGconnected's Jacob Greenwood interviews Super Smash Brother's player MKLeo, the best player in the world, about Genesis 8.
Interesting read. Personally I don't like the division between casual and so called "hardcore" gamers. What distinguishes the two? Game difficulty? The games played?
Be that as it may, what I do agree with is that devs shouldn't make games easier just because they think it'll draw the social gamer to the AAA games. Changing a game like Quake Live just to make it easier is a bad call IMHO. It dilutes the experience.
I'm a big fan of "casual" games, but don't dumb down games that don't really need to be dumbed down. Soem of the mods that have come out for Skyrim, come to mind - they actually make the inventory and UI system more in line with a PC games capability, rather than the stock config which makes it ideal for console gamers.
Dammit, keep the games in context for the audience and also their usability capability based on platform!
I've yet to see the untapped potential, because generally speaking, casual players just follows the leader, then complains if the journey is too taxing.
A perfect example would be making them play DMC 3 or 4 compared to DmC, one game is not like the other games. It's unfortunate that the industry thrives on making games less challenging, but it's the reality because of the majority.
Please, don't chase the casual carrot, because they'll dump you faster than you can say carrot.
The game itself doesn't make the player "hardcore" or "casual". Shit, I casually play starcraft 2 which has a massive hardcore base. However I'm hardcore when I play any fighting game.
Take New Super Mario Bros for example. A casual gamer may play through it and not get all the coins to unlock level 9, but a hardcore fan might.
Several points I want to bring up to counter the author, and in general as well.
For one, Miyamoto said "advanced games", not "difficult games". The key distinction is advanced games are more likely to be difficult to master or have a higher skill floor, but a difficult game is not necessarily more advanced. Flappy bird may be a difficult game but it is not advanced, you have one action to perform and to advance you only need to master one main concept. In a game like Dues Ex HR, sure you can blast your way to victory, but to take time to go for stealthy, non-kill strats is more advanced and requires more patience and involvement with the player to execute. And not only that, but to invest in the lore on an intelligent level is more proactive than the casual mindset.
Second Miyamoto isn't necessarily saying casual gamers are intrinsically pathetic or stupid, but rather the attitude they have is pathetic, that if you don't shove color and sounds and simple pleasures into their face they won't buy into it.
I believe Miyamoto has defined "casual gamers" in the best sense as of now. His view is that casual gamers are drawn to these simple games and concepts over and over and are afraid of or just don't care about more advanced or deep games (they may care a little, but not really). Also I don't think of casual as someone who has only played games for a short awhile. You can play games for a long time but still be regarded as casual, in that you don't go deep into the finer mechanics and tactics of the game (or games in general).
If you compare the total library of games played and the depth you go into each game between casual and hardcore/general gamer I'm sure you will find a huge difference. Miyamoto is trying to get the point across that casual gamers don't care too much about the finer points of a game or the depth it may have, they care about getting their visual, audio, and fun fix without much investment.
Again he isn't saying casuals are cancer or a negative thing in the industry, just their view is limited and kind of sad from the viewpoint of a legendary game designer who has a track record of deep, engaging games. I don't believe his comments are meant to bash, only to illustrate what he sees.