The term gets tossed around no matter what game people talk about. I always considered casual games either having stages you can beat in a few minutes like Angry Birds, Kirby, etc., mini game/collaboration games like Mario Party, Rock Band, etc.,or having easy multiplayer drop in/drop out capabilities that won't hinder players if they haven't played through the whole thing, like I assume the Trine series is (I've only played 2 a little over halfway through and while it has skill trees they aren't really necessary to complete the game). They all share the same simple to understand game mechanics that stay pretty static throughout the game. I don't necessarily see why "casual" games are considered bad, unless the term is used like how it usually is; to describe a popular game that's fun but easier than expected, games that can be easily broken (Skyrim, Borderlands, most AAA games) or games that a specific individual can't stand. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
for me casual just means non stressful.a game that wont lead to me leaning into my desk for hours on end without noticing that the sun isnt up anymore. pretty much any game i can still play after smoking my knees off is casual to me.
Casual is a buzzword for anyone who like funs. If you prefer Mario and Zelda, you're a casual. If you even like video games you're a casual. You gotta hate them but enjoy doing challenge runs, grinding and playing to New Game+++++++. If you're having fun you're doing it wrong. If other people are having fun they need to be informed that it's not real fun. Joking aside, If you can't tell the difference between 30fps-60fps or 720p and 1080p, you're probably a casual. If you only play AAA titles online with your friends, you're a casual. If you need other people's opinions to form your own preference, opinion and taste. That's pretty casual. You should have an idea if you enjoy something casually, enthusiastically or competitively. Like you said being a casual isn't a bad thing but they tend to be the most vocal. People who spread misinformation about console performance. People awing over breast physics in DOA instead of talking about a godly 66kk4 cancel into 50/50 mix up with frame advantage. People bitching about the Dark Souls beta and wanting the game to be easier, brighter with more punishment to people who PvP. I'm being oddly specific there but it's an example of what I see daily. Yea, there's nothing wrong with being a casual but at some point it tends to get filtered out. Edit: Opps, I went off on a tangent about casual gamers, not casual genre. Some things are casual by nature like party games but even then I've seen people take them to extreme levels. Phone games are casual by default. I think many developers are appealing to casuals by forcing things like button prompts, waypoints and tutorials down our throat.
I only really ever play one game at a time, for months at a time. Currently its Battlefield 4, started in October and dont plan on stopping anytime soon. (Sadly, its a AAA title, tainted by EAs greedy little stubby fingers). I play it 4-5 nights a week for multiple hours, with a group that always wins. We dont play in tournaments, we just join a game and play, have loads of fun, yet win too. Casual or not? Why or why not? Ive been hearing this term and am lost on its meaning, even by your definitions. Sent from my Eris using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Why does it matter if we think it's casual or not? Do you enjoy playing?...that's all that matters. To answer your question though, for me casual games are games that can be picked up and played by most people regardless of skill level. The Wii had a lot of casual games because it cAn be played by almost anyone. If you need skill to play and take time to actually get good it's usually not for the casual gamer.
Personally, I believe casual gaming is more of a personal trait than it is a genre of games. Some genres are better for casual gamers. For example, platformers work well for casual gamers. Pick it up, play a level or two, and put it down again. But really, any game can be played casually. Sent from my LG-LS970 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I didn't say anything about a game, this is a discussion thread. It's where people post their opinions on a specific topic, its quite interesting. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I say that games that are meant for experienced players, usually adults and teens, are hardcore. An example would be games for mature audiences or games that are very challenging. Games that are casual are games that any age group or experience level can have a chance playing. Examples would be Angry birds or simple apps, Wii Sports/Fit, training games, board games/party games, puzzle games, etc. Platforming games or Nintendo games like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc, would still be more considered hardcore games than casual because these games still require the player to be experienced. However, these games are slightly more casual because of difficulty, and age apropriate content. I like a mix of casual and hardcore. I'm a huge Nintendo fan and have been for almost my whole life. I like games that are challenging, but short in length because I don't like investing a lot of time in one game, with a few exceptions.
I can't say for DK but Zelda and Mario are leagues away from hardcore. Hardcore would be like Dwarf Fortress or something. Being able to jump on and play at any time regardless of experience or age is more on the casual side. Zelda isn't a platformer either.
Excuse me, there was one Zelda platformer out of 15 other adventure titles. Everything else I said is true.
Oh, there were more LoZ games that were platformers besides the one on NES, they just aren't worth mentioning. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app