The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Original Message posted by Sibs on 09/11/2001 at 11.23PM on the vic20 server, but no-one is there so I am re-posting it here. (PS sorry about the earlier 'incident' with about 10 of the same posts, I didn't mean to but I kept getting funny errors and stuff)
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games, but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
There is nothing wrong with casual gamers (despite my title!), but companies are exploiting them all the time. Every time a rubbish game has been made from a blockbuster film or TV series, the hardcore gamers will see reviews, etc. and find out the game is awful, but casual gamers may buy the game because ‘it was a cool film’. This can be likened to pop music in the music industry. Sure there are people who really like pop music (god help them :D) but there are others who just listen because they know no better. The stuff on the radio is what they have heard, and that’s what they buy, whether it’s actually good or complete pap.
Now you may think ‘ah I know! Get rid of casual gamers’. But what would be the point? The reason there actually are gaming companies out there is because gaming is increasing in popularity, so more companies are making games. Without the masses of casual gamers, then gaming in general would be much less popular, games less easily available, and less games, and that makes us hardcore gamers unhappy.
So why are casual gamers so important? Well they decide which genre of games is ‘in style’. I doubt a casual gamer would be playing on Baldurs Gate, or another stat heavy RPG. They are more likely to be found playing a driving sim, a football or footie management sim or maybe a 1st person shooter. This is generalising hugely, but these are the genres which, in general stay in the charts for some time (as well as the wrestling sims, but that is a bit of a contradiction. How can you simulate fake violence and make it look realistic?). These are the ‘big money’ genres, yet there are still companies out there making other genres. Why is this? Because the developers haven’t abandoned us hardcore gamers, and are still making genres to cater for all tastes.
So casual gamers have their advantages and disadvantages to them. Often they’ll buy games based on looks and this is why consoles are now fighting over biggest processor and polygon per second counts. And this is why games are becoming increasingly realistic looking (bar Nintendo games :D), to attract the casual gamers. Back in the good old days looks didn’t matter so much, and indeed the realism in games is taken to such an extent of advertising in them. Football sims have ads on the stadium side-lines, and formula one racers have ads on the cars and barriers. Even Sega’s ‘Super Monkey Ball’ has a corporate logo adorning every banana in the game!
Back in the old days games could make a mockery of big corporations, indeed if anyone else remembers ‘James Pond’ (I think it was the second one) on the Megadrive then you may remember a level with a music theme. Somewhere in there was a section where you jumped over sound systems branded ‘Bony’ with bones making up the outline of the sides of the speakers, and a dogs head logo on the stereo. Pretty ironic now Sony has such a hold on the home console market.
So are casual gamers evil or not? You decide. But don’t go killing anyone about it. It’s only a game…
PS Don't vote Sibs cos I suck
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games, but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
There is nothing wrong with casual gamers (despite my title!), but companies are exploiting them all the time. Every time a rubbish game has been made from a blockbuster film or TV series, the hardcore gamers will see reviews, etc. and find out the game is awful, but casual gamers may buy the game because ‘it was a cool film’. This can be likened to pop music in the music industry. Sure there are people who really like pop music (god help them :D) but there are others who just listen because they know no better. The stuff on the radio is what they have heard, and that’s what they buy, whether it’s actually good or complete pap.
Now you may think ‘ah I know! Get rid of casual gamers’. But what would be the point? The reason there actually are gaming companies out there is because gaming is increasing in popularity, so more companies are making games. Without the masses of casual gamers, then gaming in general would be much less popular, games less easily available, and less games, and that makes us hardcore gamers unhappy.
So why are casual gamers so important? Well they decide which genre of games is ‘in style’. I doubt a casual gamer would be playing on Baldurs Gate, or another stat heavy RPG. They are more likely to be found playing a driving sim, a football or footie management sim or maybe a 1st person shooter. This is generalising hugely, but these are the genres which, in general stay in the charts for some time (as well as the wrestling sims, but that is a bit of a contradiction. How can you simulate fake violence and make it look realistic?). These are the ‘big money’ genres, yet there are still companies out there making other genres. Why is this? Because the developers haven’t abandoned us hardcore gamers, and are still making genres to cater for all tastes.
So casual gamers have their advantages and disadvantages to them. Often they’ll buy games based on looks and this is why consoles are now fighting over biggest processor and polygon per second counts. And this is why games are becoming increasingly realistic looking (bar Nintendo games :D), to attract the casual gamers. Back in the good old days looks didn’t matter so much, and indeed the realism in games is taken to such an extent of advertising in them. Football sims have ads on the stadium side-lines, and formula one racers have ads on the cars and barriers. Even Sega’s ‘Super Monkey Ball’ has a corporate logo adorning every banana in the game!
Back in the old days games could make a mockery of big corporations, indeed if anyone else remembers ‘James Pond’ (I think it was the second one) on the Megadrive then you may remember a level with a music theme. Somewhere in there was a section where you jumped over sound systems branded ‘Bony’ with bones making up the outline of the sides of the speakers, and a dogs head logo on the stereo. Pretty ironic now Sony has such a hold on the home console market.
So are casual gamers evil or not? You decide. But don’t go killing anyone about it. It’s only a game…
PS Don't vote Sibs cos I suck
PS the point is (you really have to dig deep to find it somewhere in there... :D) that are casual gamers really good for the gaming industry, and are they good for 'hardcore' gamers? I just put this together to try to show that there are good and bad points to them.
But Bonus what do you mean just like people go to the cinema just to watch a film, or listen to the radio just to hear music? I mean do you buy a game purely on how good its graphics are? I certainly don't.
And I said it's ironic cos these were (in many cases anyway) people who would take the mickey out of 'dork' gamers, and they are now playing games themselves because they are 'in' or 'cool'. That was the point I was trying to put across with that opening paragraph you quoted.
It wasn't anything to do with films or music. If you are going to make the comparison with these then it is nothing like people just listen to the radio to hear music. I would make the comparison of alternative music like Limp Bizkit and other bands under the 'Nu-Metal' catergory. A few years back this brand of heavy rock was listened to by only a small minority, and now every wannabe rebel wants a piece of it. Granted some will become 'real' fans and stick with the music after it's 'cool', but many will simply move on to the next big thing. It is the same kinda thing with casual gamers. Even if they don't abandon gaming, they are often going to stick to the 'big' (read popular) genres, and not explore the others that 'hardcore' gamers would.
That's to clarify, and the musical example of Nu-Metal wasn't used because of any leanings I have towards or against it, it is just the first example I could think of.
And I said it's ironic cos these were (in many cases anyway) people who would take the mickey out of 'dork' gamers, and they are now playing games themselves because they are 'in' or 'cool'. That was the point I was trying to put across with that opening paragraph you quoted.
It wasn't anything to do with films or music. If you are going to make the comparison with these then it is nothing like people just listen to the radio to hear music. I would make the comparison of alternative music like Limp Bizkit and other bands under the 'Nu-Metal' catergory. A few years back this brand of heavy rock was listened to by only a small minority, and now every wannabe rebel wants a piece of it. Granted some will become 'real' fans and stick with the music after it's 'cool', but many will simply move on to the next big thing. It is the same kinda thing with casual gamers. Even if they don't abandon gaming, they are often going to stick to the 'big' (read popular) genres, and not explore the others that 'hardcore' gamers would.
That's to clarify, and the musical example of Nu-Metal wasn't used because of any leanings I have towards or against it, it is just the first example I could think of.
That's the thing, what is the point?
Sibs wrote:
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were
> taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their
> copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games,
> but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy
> a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
A bit like people who go to the cinema just to watch a film? Or listen to the radio just to listen to some music?
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were
> taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their
> copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games,
> but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy
> a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
A bit like people who go to the cinema just to watch a film? Or listen to the radio just to listen to some music?
Original Message posted by Sibs on 09/11/2001 at 11.23PM on the vic20 server, but no-one is there so I am re-posting it here. (PS sorry about the earlier 'incident' with about 10 of the same posts, I didn't mean to but I kept getting funny errors and stuff)
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games, but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
There is nothing wrong with casual gamers (despite my title!), but companies are exploiting them all the time. Every time a rubbish game has been made from a blockbuster film or TV series, the hardcore gamers will see reviews, etc. and find out the game is awful, but casual gamers may buy the game because ‘it was a cool film’. This can be likened to pop music in the music industry. Sure there are people who really like pop music (god help them :D) but there are others who just listen because they know no better. The stuff on the radio is what they have heard, and that’s what they buy, whether it’s actually good or complete pap.
Now you may think ‘ah I know! Get rid of casual gamers’. But what would be the point? The reason there actually are gaming companies out there is because gaming is increasing in popularity, so more companies are making games. Without the masses of casual gamers, then gaming in general would be much less popular, games less easily available, and less games, and that makes us hardcore gamers unhappy.
So why are casual gamers so important? Well they decide which genre of games is ‘in style’. I doubt a casual gamer would be playing on Baldurs Gate, or another stat heavy RPG. They are more likely to be found playing a driving sim, a football or footie management sim or maybe a 1st person shooter. This is generalising hugely, but these are the genres which, in general stay in the charts for some time (as well as the wrestling sims, but that is a bit of a contradiction. How can you simulate fake violence and make it look realistic?). These are the ‘big money’ genres, yet there are still companies out there making other genres. Why is this? Because the developers haven’t abandoned us hardcore gamers, and are still making genres to cater for all tastes.
So casual gamers have their advantages and disadvantages to them. Often they’ll buy games based on looks and this is why consoles are now fighting over biggest processor and polygon per second counts. And this is why games are becoming increasingly realistic looking (bar Nintendo games :D), to attract the casual gamers. Back in the good old days looks didn’t matter so much, and indeed the realism in games is taken to such an extent of advertising in them. Football sims have ads on the stadium side-lines, and formula one racers have ads on the cars and barriers. Even Sega’s ‘Super Monkey Ball’ has a corporate logo adorning every banana in the game!
Back in the old days games could make a mockery of big corporations, indeed if anyone else remembers ‘James Pond’ (I think it was the second one) on the Megadrive then you may remember a level with a music theme. Somewhere in there was a section where you jumped over sound systems branded ‘Bony’ with bones making up the outline of the sides of the speakers, and a dogs head logo on the stereo. Pretty ironic now Sony has such a hold on the home console market.
So are casual gamers evil or not? You decide. But don’t go killing anyone about it. It’s only a game…
PS Don't vote Sibs cos I suck
Gaming is ironic isn’t it? The same people who were taking the mickey out of gamers a few years back are now powering up their copies of Tomb Raider and Tony Hawks. There’s nothing wrong with these games, but they sucked in new gamers, who play casually, and quite often, will just buy a game based on ‘cool graphics’.
There is nothing wrong with casual gamers (despite my title!), but companies are exploiting them all the time. Every time a rubbish game has been made from a blockbuster film or TV series, the hardcore gamers will see reviews, etc. and find out the game is awful, but casual gamers may buy the game because ‘it was a cool film’. This can be likened to pop music in the music industry. Sure there are people who really like pop music (god help them :D) but there are others who just listen because they know no better. The stuff on the radio is what they have heard, and that’s what they buy, whether it’s actually good or complete pap.
Now you may think ‘ah I know! Get rid of casual gamers’. But what would be the point? The reason there actually are gaming companies out there is because gaming is increasing in popularity, so more companies are making games. Without the masses of casual gamers, then gaming in general would be much less popular, games less easily available, and less games, and that makes us hardcore gamers unhappy.
So why are casual gamers so important? Well they decide which genre of games is ‘in style’. I doubt a casual gamer would be playing on Baldurs Gate, or another stat heavy RPG. They are more likely to be found playing a driving sim, a football or footie management sim or maybe a 1st person shooter. This is generalising hugely, but these are the genres which, in general stay in the charts for some time (as well as the wrestling sims, but that is a bit of a contradiction. How can you simulate fake violence and make it look realistic?). These are the ‘big money’ genres, yet there are still companies out there making other genres. Why is this? Because the developers haven’t abandoned us hardcore gamers, and are still making genres to cater for all tastes.
So casual gamers have their advantages and disadvantages to them. Often they’ll buy games based on looks and this is why consoles are now fighting over biggest processor and polygon per second counts. And this is why games are becoming increasingly realistic looking (bar Nintendo games :D), to attract the casual gamers. Back in the good old days looks didn’t matter so much, and indeed the realism in games is taken to such an extent of advertising in them. Football sims have ads on the stadium side-lines, and formula one racers have ads on the cars and barriers. Even Sega’s ‘Super Monkey Ball’ has a corporate logo adorning every banana in the game!
Back in the old days games could make a mockery of big corporations, indeed if anyone else remembers ‘James Pond’ (I think it was the second one) on the Megadrive then you may remember a level with a music theme. Somewhere in there was a section where you jumped over sound systems branded ‘Bony’ with bones making up the outline of the sides of the speakers, and a dogs head logo on the stereo. Pretty ironic now Sony has such a hold on the home console market.
So are casual gamers evil or not? You decide. But don’t go killing anyone about it. It’s only a game…
PS Don't vote Sibs cos I suck