-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Stop referring to people with different gaming preferences to you as "Casuals"
- Thread starter ggx2ac
- Start date
- Status
No, but a sizable chunk of the self-proclaimed 'hardcore' pay as little as possible to play as much as possible and then proclaim how publishers should cater to them the most.
What else should I take away from an embarrassing thread based on a ridiculous premise?
That perhaps we shouldn't call people names because they play games differently than someone else?
That the basis of the topic isn't that publishers dumbing down a game to get the lowest common denominator isn't a problem, its that it's largely prevelent in the gaming community, even outside this place, that deems "casuals" as a type of gamer gatekeepers want publishers and developers to avoid when making their favorite games, to keep new blood away from the scene by not changing anything to make it at least somewhat more accessible. And once that deed is done, the mass market is a scapegoat. It's no longer "their game" it's now a game with a wider entrance.
And basically whether or not you would categorize yourself as a casual anyways, the fact of the matter is a lot of people in the games you're willing to play that are traditionally more involved, you'll have to accept community language that mocks how you play anyways.
Even back in the Wii days, I saw a way to use the terms "hardcore" and "casual" that was accurate and not pejorative. Those terms are not types of games or gamers but types of play styles that people choose to use on a game-by-game basis. The elderly person who plays Wii Sports every day is a hardcore Wii Sports fan for instance. Anyway, that's just how I use those terms. The other way to use those terms is lame and makes you look like a gatekeeper.
I'm a mega casual gamer to be honest. Didn't use to be, but time went on and I only play single player games and not as frequently as I used to. Barely even keep up with this website anymore. Which is not a bad thing, but hey. I'm totally 500% fine being a filthy casual. It's fun and stress free.
I am a Nintend only player.
Some people here said that they can not imagine what I am missing...
But I am not missing anything!
Some people here said that they can not imagine what I am missing...
But I am not missing anything!
There is nothing wrong with casual players but I also totally understand it when people are annoyed at something being made more accessible for the sake of trying to attract a wider audience. It can result in a negative for the series, especially when the game ends up performing much worse than its predecessor... (Hi, Street Fighter V)
Get thicker skin and deal with it...talk about first world problems.
Fact is that studios know that casuals exist and that's why they cater to them, sometimes at the detriment of more habitual players and more hardcore/complex game design.
Fact is that studios know that casuals exist and that's why they cater to them, sometimes at the detriment of more habitual players and more hardcore/complex game design.
Last edited:
I've not heard that term in reference to anything but sports ("casual sports fan") in quite some time or in reference to Nintendo wii owners.
1v1 me in Bayonetta Tag Climax 3 star difficulty you filthy scrub
Ok fine, but first lets try to get epic to understand cultural erasure is real and they are volunteering by not crediting their dancing emotes to the artists that created them.
Thats more important imo
Thats more important imo
I'm passionate about gaming but not inte the way that normal hardcore are. Case in point: Crusin Wii was one of my top10 games last gen. So much fun but 0 production value.
Definately. A lot of posters here came from the old forum and casual was used there a lot to deride peoples gaming taste.
Everytime I look into a pokemon thread I see things like
-IV's
-Natures
-Breeding methods
and I'm like "Just use fire on grass"
- Status