Friday, April 30, 2010

Lecture 8: 29Apr2010 Tangibility in Games

Today you learned about tangibility in games, and what characteristics of tangibility you can use in your game to what effects, as well as a lot about casual games and why they benefit from a social approach through social facilitation. 

One aspect that should be added to the idea of tangibility is the opportunity to personalize your tangible object: for example, your guitar in guitar hero can be personalized with stickers, you can buy a better-looking plastic guitar etc. just to make you look even more like a rock-star, to support the fantasy effect of becoming a rock-star the game facilitates. You don't really have this opportunity for personalization with Natal.

And thanks for all your comments on the survey sheet! Here is already one change (I hope you like it):

Please comment on the blog what you think about casual games, tangibility and social play.
If your opinion has already been voiced, why don't you repeat the most important point (1 is enough) you have learned so that the people who weren't in have an easy way to catch up?

Homework for next week:
* Blog: See above
* Report progress on your team website/blog
* Read the reading assignments for next week


  1. There was a discussion going for a while there regarding your "Table Tennis for Three" game and how some players preferred to play against the blocks rather than the other players, making it more like a single player experience.

    I was thinking about this and obviously the detatchment a player feels from other players is created by the virtual wall created by the blocks. It's kind of like trying to have a conversation with someone across a table with a big vase of flowers between the two of you, it makes it difficult to focus on the person and you almost feel like you are talking to the obstruction rather than the individual. I think the best way to solve this is to change the visuals shown on the screen so rather than the live feed being shown in the background and the blocks being between the players, the live feed could be projected onto the blocks so that the blocks become the windows to view the other player rather than the obstructions seperating them from you.

    Going back to the casual games presentation and when you asked whether casual games should be taught in this degree, I would say they should. The reason being, like a few people suggested at the lecture, I see casual games as being fundemental. Essentially, I think "casual" games are simplified "hardcore" games and so they retain all the basic principles needed to create a "hardcore" game, without the massive teams and emphasis on technology.

  2. My understanding of casual and hard core games is "generally" the more or less: time needed to invest into the game, learning curve, difficulty level and how fast/often you get (instant) gratification. Makes a game casual or hard core, though lots of games have elements that would fall under both. and it also depends on how the player goes about playing the game as you could play a "casual" game hardcore or play a "hardcore" game casually.
    Or i could just simplify that and say that a casual game is one with fairly simple easy to understand objectives that don't require a lot of time invested to gain gratification.

    Tim makes a good point "casual"games are simplified "hardcore" games.
    games generally use a simple core mechanic but then have variations of it, that is then repeated throughout the game. But "casual" just depend on the one core mechanic alone. So working on casual games would help when developing the core mechanics of a more complex game.

    the social aspect of games, play a giant roll in the current success in current casual games. like Farm-ville and Guitar Hero, people play these games socially and many people are driven to gain more skill and levels to be better than there friends to feel superior and something I got from a talk: Jesse Schell: When games invade real life one of the many good points Jesse Schell makes is the idea that playing a game like farmville is worthwhile, Why? because you have spent time on it so it must be worth while right ?.

  3. If it was up to me, I would just scrap out such labels as “hardcore gamers” and “casual gamers”. I believe them to be redundant and feel as though such prevents us from trying out games, which take us away from our comfort zones or lack the technicality and complexity that we are used to. I know that there are several out there who beg to differ, but I’ve noticed that whenever the word ‘casual’ is brought up that individuals become somewhat reluctant, or even unenthusiastic to try the game out. Are we afraid of losing our repute as hardcore gamers? Are we afraid of those around us looking down upon us? Honestly, is it a crime for someone to be caught playing a game that lacks the complexity featured in other games? To be in such a field as this, I believe the thing that all individuals should encompass is an open mind and pure courage, for without such attributes we will never be able to dive into the deep end and think up game concepts that are purely awesome in its make. As it is, there are enough labels in Society to, so, in that case, why must we create more?

  4. Dean BickerdikeMay 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    Hope you all enjoyed group 9’s presentation on Jesper Juul’s book “A Casual Revolution” and my talk on the three different types of gaming space (3D Space, Player Space and Screen Space). To me “casual” games are games that are easy to learn, fit well with a large number of players, work well in a social context, don’t require an intimate knowledge of video game history and can be played in short time bursts, essentially providing the player with an instant hit of fun or gaming satisfaction at a low level of difficulty. However there are of course “hardcore” games that also have these attributes.

    Personally I see most arcade games as “casual” games but as we saw in the video there are some people out there who take their arcade gaming very seriously and would certainly consider arcade games “hardcore” and themselves “hardcore” gamers. If I am ever playing in an arcade with friends, yes I will try to impress them however I will generally not take the game seriously and play only for a laugh. Basically it all depends on how much time you are willing to devote to playing the game and how serious you are about completing the challenges it presents. As Simon already explained you can play a "casual" game hardcore or play a "hardcore" game casually.

    If you have read the first chapter of the book you will know that gamers are not just “casual” OR “hardcore” but rather, over time, they are a combination of both. This was particularly interesting for me as I would describe myself as once being a “hardcore” gamer that has now transitioned to a more “casual” style of play. Don’t get me wrong I still love to play “hardcore” games however because of time restraints I find myself only playing the occasional social match on Xbox live and much like my experiences in the arcades I seem to play only for a laugh. Jesper Juul explains that this is the case with most young “hardcore” gamers however there are even those who move from “casual” gaming to “hardcore” gaming.
    Having said this I feel that any game can be casual, hardcore or even both it simply depends on who is playing the game and what type of experience they wish to gain from it.

  5. just like to say a simple personal point of view on the whole serious/casual games.

    my younger brother plays flashgames, no joke, whenever he is not eating, sleeping or at school. he mostly plays at kongregate. the games are pretty simple and not serious at all. one of the most recent one i saw him play is a game about hurtling down a hill in a trolley and then doing tricks on it while it flies through the air. pretty silly but he plays with the intensity and dedication of any of my other friends who play counterstrike. and once the game has been clocked and all the achievements have been unlocked, he goes to the next game. there is very little emotional attachment to the games. he may like few games here and there but there is nothing else. i would personally call him a hardcore gamer. the games that he plays are not serious but the gamer is.

    i am a causal gamer. i dont aim and i dont really think. my main concerns are things like staying alive long enough so i could shoot someone in the ass or face with a grenade launcher and then getting a good laugh out of it. and yet the game is a very serious game like CoDMW1/2 or CS. the games are serious but the gamer isnt.

    me and my brother both likes fallout 3 for its look and atmosphere and all these other things that we like about the game. while playing fallout 3, we are neither extremely serious or extremely casual. we both enjoy exploding raiders with a mini nuke and we enjoy silently and painstakingly sneaking up on supermutants (although my brother thinks nuking them is funnier).

    so personally speaking, i think there is no such thing as a defined serious or casual game. it may lean towards a certain side, judging from what the majority of the people think. even then, it is not defined because people are people and they all have a very complex mind.

    same way you cant judge a person from simple stereotyping or personality tests, you cant label games. and i think having a specialised team intent on creating a very specific game will create a game that is very dry and tasteless to play after a certain amount of time.

  6. Another great lecture.
    Still, the first team's presentation left me thinking regarding the true
    definitions of casual game as well as hardcore game. Just what makes
    them distinguishing to each other? To me, there is NO identical or
    decisive difference between them. Frankly, what makes us compelled to
    separate them as two different kinds is players with countless types of
    characteristics. One mentioned that casual game is a simplified version of hardcore game, and i concur with it. Regardless of the types of
    games, there ALWAYS is some aspects that can be only achieved from hard effort; those games so called, casual games of course are not
    exceptions. Even for dong king-kong, it takes tones of effort to
    masteries it. If we still have to define the differentia between the two
    types of game, perhaps casual game is a game that can be clocked with no special skills and hardcore game might be the opposite. Yet, it's still
    ambiguous, since hardcore gaming aspect remains in casual games.

    As for your speech Floyd, i completely agree with your argument that 'uncertainty' breathes amusement into game. I personally consider the term 'unexpected' as a very exciting factor for any kind of circumstances. People have a tendency to seek for unforeseeable things
    and gain stimulation from it. As you have proven, even for little table tennis, the uncertainty that the real ball generated aroused such delights and excitement inside the players. It was an outstanding lesson to remind of that factor :]

  7. Hmmm casual games. They're pretty fun with other people but ot particularly memorable. However, I think they seem to create memorable moments between people and engage people in social interaction...Casual games, the games to play with friends who dont play games.

    Social play is an interesting thought and a fascinating idea that some people will play better with a crowd and some will play worse. I also enjoyed the fact that people playing the table tennis for three game could engage socially with people they hadnt met after they played together...

    Though Floyd your comment that you didnt want poeple playing against the game - I wondered if you wouldnt mind if people played together against the game? It could be heaps of fun and I thought it would bond people who hadnt met together more...

    Anywho, good lecture about tangibility even though I'm a little bit vague about what it means...Though I certainly do agree with your statement that uncertainty makes a game more fun (something I'm trying to implement into our team's game right now ;) ) and I wonder is there a particular thing about randomness that we could single out and refine that is fun? Like the fact no matter how skilled yu are it can happen to you?

    Anway I'm out - have a good weekend everyone miao!

  8. Good lecture, both presentations made good use of video, and the ones used in the A Casual Revolution pres were especially attention grabbing.
    I completely agree with the casual games guys; there aren't hardcore or casual games, just hardcore or casual players, and it was interesting to see how that translated to the arcade presentation. One of the main points they brought up was that a game that was a spectacle (like DJ Max, or DDR) would attract a crowd and encourage the spectators to try it themselves, but I don’t think that all the action happening in the player space is what makes someone want to play a game. Obviously it’s going to attract people (it’s easier to see flamboyant drumming than precisely timed button pressing), but I think watching someone play SFIV (or I guess SSFIV now) more engaging. O would never have started playing BlazBlue if I didn’t want to try and get into the combo show in 2d space. And considering that a company as large and important as Capcom thought it was worth their while to release major Street Fighter iterations in Arcade before they get hoe console releases (July 18, 2008 v. February 12 for 4 in Japan, - That’s right I’m citing Wikipedia) I thought it was something they should have touched on. The video of the guys playing basketball that the arcade guys used illustrated their point well, but I wasn't really convinced (would've been nice to see some studies or a factual video as well or instead). Besides that, it was cool that Jeff could call on an someone he knows for an example, when we found out how much he spends on arcade machines and how the arcades use him to lure in customers it really put it into perspective.
    Back to the Casual Rev. Guys and what they said about there not being any hardcore or casual gamers, I’m sure it’s been said many times before but that has to be why Guitar Hero, Peggle and Bejewelled are so popular; because they allow for both the casual and the hardcore player. Personally I consider myself a hardcore player, I like min maxing the specs of my RPG gang, getting into the tech of fighters and completing every challenge in Peggle (Playing through for the second time now on my iPod). That said, if the games I mentioned before didn’t have a component that was easy to get into then of course they wouldn’t have been as popular. And on ‘casual’ games replacing ‘hardcore’ games, while I don’t think it’s a completely unfounded fear with the way the market’s been moving lately, fully-fledged retail console games will always be the home of hardcore games IMO. Compare the games games that made the top 20 best selling games of this month in America: The best selling game was Splinter Cell Conviction, followed by Pokemon (keeping in mind that it’s an RPG at heart), ignoring Wii sports because it’s a shambles that it’s included in these lists and then there’s New Super Mario Bros Wii. If we really do want to draw broad strokes and pigeon hole games then there’s 1 hardcore game, 1 casual and a happy middle-ground in Pokemon. Also, by comparing the sales figures of what someone might classify a harcore or casual game, the hardcore arena definitely looks a lot healthier. Games haven’t been ranking for as long but still have healthy sales figures, next month or the one after a new batch of games will take their place, but casual games have to struggle against a thousand other games targeting parents, grandparents and children, and only the supremely popular can get a hold, and when they do they're there for tens of weeks.

  9. Great lecture, and kudos to the groups that presented; I will second the nice use of videos to visually describe the topics they were discussing.

    Casual games. Well this is quite a hazy area for me because, as was previously posted, when discussing casual versus hardcore games us gamers usually refer to ourselves first and which category we fall under. For me, I'm not quite sure....maybe a combination of both as Dean pointed out?

    Wait maybe I should explain why I feel that way...

    In the past I would have defenitely considered myself a hardcore gamer. Hands down. I spent a good 3/4 of my life in front of the tv dominating my large collection of rpgs and fps (did someone say homework? What homework?) and a tendency I always had was to finish a game 100% (this would mean it would take me several months to fulfil all the criteria and ensure I completed every side quest and mission known to man). God knows how much time and effort I would put in to those 4 am mornings, but it was the passion and dedication of it that made me continue to play even when I could not pass a particular boss, even if the hardest level required me to try 50 times over.

    And then facebook came along. I'm joking ;]

    However, recently I've struggled to find the time now to put in that kind of commitment. We all get jobs and social lives you know, and consoles don't exactly work around the late afternoon and thursday night timetable of RMIT games. Thus I can certainly understand what Jesper Juul is talking about when he discusses how convenient casual games are for an older age group with limited time, even if these casual gamers were once hardcore.

    Truth be told, everytime I try to start a game and complete it 100% these days, I end up just abandoning it half way and say to myself 'oh yeah wait next holidays'......'summer holidays I'm definitely finishing it'......'maybe mid semester...' FYI: that never works.

    So casual games are sort of easier now to still find that connection with my passion for games, while working around my non-game schedule. However, as was previously mentioned at thursday night's lecture, this does not mean that one cannot be hardcore on what may "appear" to be a casual game. I'm glad Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii was mentioned, because I bloody worked my ass off to collect all the stars in that game to win the secret god-knows-what at the end. The amount of wrist tension with that damn Wiimote nearly gave me RSI.

    Plus casual games also allow me to spend more time with my younger sister (i.e. social facilitation) which was also mentioned thursday night. I find it a new opportunity for me when I enjoy games to also interact with others, rather than being lonesome in front of the tv. Mario Galaxy is a perfect example because it allows "2 player", but hold it! It's not the multiplayer you're thinking of: 2 people work together to control Mario at the same time...ummmm if that makes sense. One person moves him around while the other uses a pointer on the screen to collect stars. The secondary person can also make Mario jump, and shoot stars to kill enemies, in case the first player isn't able to multitask or isnt watching in times of danger. So Alex, if you were asking about "people playing together against the game", I think that might be your answer?

  10. Hey Guys!
    A Casual Gamer or Hardcore Gamer?.. Both of these have to be properly defined! I personally don’t like using either of the terms. Some people may say it is the difference between putting the hours into the completion of a game or the difficulty level... I don’t believe you can define any game as either a casual or hardcore game due to these points raised.
    Difficulty levels can be changed in most games... What if you still put in the hours, staying up til the morning to complete an RPG game of some sort on a very easy difficulty... would that make it a Hardcore game due to the hours put in? Doesn’t this contradict the other statement of a hardcore gamer being an individual playing games which are challenging or a hard difficulty? Anyway, what I’m getting at is; some of the games mentioned in the lectures to be hardcore or casual can be played on different difficulties and ultimately hardcore games can be played casually and casual games can be played hardcore style!!
    You could also perceive a casual game as one with little or extremely strait forward objectives to result in a jubilant feeling out of the game with little emotion... An example of this would be a lot of the Wii games such as Wii Sports. However, personally I made my character “PRO” in all of the sports on the game for gratification getting skill points up to 2000 EXCEPT FOR ONE OF THE GAMES! :Z Boxing... I reached 950 or so but I swear it was impossible to get your character a PRO in boxing! I tried many times to achieve this but even when I would win in the last round... MY SKILL POINTS WOULD GO DOWN! DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE THIS PROBLEM lol? So I eventually gave up... lol So this is hypothetically an example of a casual game played like a hardcore game? The reason I gave up and why I do give up on games these days is as mentioned by Estelle previously; due to our hectic agenda’s at this age!
    Personally, i have a PS2 and used to play a range of 1 player games and would have defiantly considered myself as a hardcore gamer playing them til i drop!.. However, as I have aged I have found myself playing more casual games... Nintendo’s concept of the Wii is so brilliant even if many of you don’t like it as it has reached a whole new audience. I have a Wii and still love playing games! Games such as SuperSmashBrosBrawl and MarioSuperStrikers and a series of other games have allowed me to play games through my tight agenda as well as being socially beneficial too! I can play Wii when I get a chance with my brother as well as my cousins when I’m at my Noonie’s (grandparents). Or even games such as CounterStrike/UnrealTournament on PC. Casual games have allowed me to continue to play games and still receive gratification through simplistic achievements and results.

  11. nice discussion bout definition of hardcore gamers and casual gamers , to be honest i don't really care the difference between them and i don't know which classification i am in .coz for me the games meant to be fun and usually when player turn the difficulties into hard mode , it just make the game to be more hard but not more fun.

    anyway, really good lecture :) engaging and not too boring :lol

    and sorry guys about my presentation ,i know u all don't really understood what did i say :lol ,i was panic on that tme :) will do better next time ,hopefully....:lol

  12. I have to agree with chet. I really dislike putting the hardcore and casual tags on games and even more so on gamers. I don't want to be judged in anyway because of how/why/when I play games. I think using these labels just encourages people to over simplify their views of game design and of what makes a good game. More importantly I think many people tend towards thinking casual = bad while hardcore = good. NOT EVERYONE IN THIS COURSE HAS BEEN A HARDCORE GAMER, some people in this will probably never be hardcore gamers. I've never labelled myself a hardcore gamer yet I try a lot of different games and am interested in game design. Does not being a hardcore gamer make me less worthy of being in this course? I really hope no one here thinks so. In short we need to either ditch the tags altogether or at least remember that there are more to games and players than being 'casual' or 'hardcore' and that these labels are not the same as 'good' and 'bad'.

    One thing that was brought up very briefly in one of the presentations reminds me of a point I tried to bring up before on here. The point mentioned was something like in the past people didn't exercise they were simply kept fit by there normal lifestyles, but today exercise is more of a ritual and physical games need to successfully avoid becoming the same as going to the gym in order to have a future as games.
    Anyway I'm interested in this because it seems to me like there is something wrong with society and rather than making games to try to keep people fit there should be some sort of effort to change the way society itself is. Rather than glossing over the issue perhaps it's time to take a look at where society may have gone wrong (obesity is a huge health problem in Australia)and fix our actual lifestyles. Just wondering if anyone has any opinions on this since it was mentioned in class.

  13. All I have to say on the topic of casual and hardcore games, is that I don't really see how defining games or gamers in those terms is particularly useful. It is a divisive topic, and its very divisiveness far outweighs any of the practical benefits the distinction may provide.

    Pointing out these components may have some use in regards to the analysis of games, but the ground covered by the terminology 'casual' and 'hardcore' is very broad, and it seems needlessly contentious for individuals to start labeling themselves as one or the other.

    A good game will usually involve both casual and dedicated aspects of gameplay. Games need to be fun enough for the player to want to play initially, but also challenging enough for them to keep going, and want to master the game over time.

    I'm all for the analysis of games, but in my opinion, the 'casual vs. hardcore' model of interpretation is like seeing the issue in monochrome. The palette is far greater than that, and we as game makers should endeavour to appreciate the full gamut.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. Another good lecture this past week
    but in regards to that example used where it was guitar hero vs the air guitar game i also thought there was a sense of value in actually holding a real guitar rather then a make believe one, same could be said for the wii ping pong vs the brake out ping pong holding a wii remote in the end is just a representation and the ball you hit is defined by whats on the screen. Where as in the brake out ping pong it was all real. hitting a real ball was more rewarding adding to its value.

    As for hardcore and casual gamers i think the terms are fairly stupid, its understandable that the terms are used to divide the market and aim for either one side of the audiences or the other but in the end we are all gamers or at least for the people in this course game artists and designers. Its just a matter of doing what you want to do. that being said it part of human nature to categorize things to make them simple, easier to make judgment they have done it with race, religion, the game market, games, the list goes on but in the end the tags are just something to separate us.

    Simply put we are all working towards games in the end weather we play them make them (referring to Candys point earlier)

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. I definately enjoyed this last lecture, the discussions were especially good this week. I thought that the hardkoar vs casual topic is an interesting collection of blurred lines, but as Luke pointed out it remains generally inconsequential.

    Also Alex and Estelle, on the topic of the 'playing co-op against the game', I mentioned that in the context of Floyd's Table Tennis for Three game (eg. both players preventing space invader-like aliens reaching the table). Floyd's response was that they had developed a co-op version of the Table Tennis for Three but players were generally only interested in multiplayer/versus rounds, so that they could win the game in it's entirety. Still, I agree with you guys that co-op potential is way cool but I think it would seem like a more appealing option (at least in terms of Table Tennis for Three) specifically AFTER players have played against each other numerous times. Often, after people have had versus matches for a while they know who is more proficient etc and it becomes a bit stale. So I think keeping the co-op capability is definately a useful way to keep games fresh to players and provide them with more options for the long term.

  18. i agree with tim, i can't classify if a game is hardcore or casual, because thats just too black and white. because you can't put 'serious' games in either catagory, because its not created for the purpose of entertainment.

    also can you consider yourself a hardcore gamer? without the thought of playing a game you find boring or hate and finishing that game, for QA position in games industries they will hire you for your willingness to play any game and be able to analyse it without any negativity towards the game(only constructive). right now i'm playing the pokemon soul silver on NDS and i'm hating it, but i've clocked 90 hours on it in 1 weeks of playing, so that's roughly 12 hours a day. can you do that to a game you hate?

    i agree with chet and candy the comments about people in this course, just because you're in this course doesn't immediantly mean you play games, though its easy to assume you would.

    i loved the table tennis for three, because it was interesting to see how this was done because i come a very heavily table tennis orientated family and i'd showed it to them and they were very interested.

  19. Often advertisement for games have phrases like "you can design your OWN character," or "customize in your OWN way."
    So, some people seem to love being unique.
    Tangibility in games easily allows its players to play uniquely. And, maybe that's one advantage tangibility has.

    I believe, any game can be casual or hardcore depending on how it's played.
    For example, Super Mario Bros. can be hardcore if you set restriction to your game play, such as never using item.
    The problem is that some games reject "casual players" by making the game too hard to start playing with.
    I, a casual player, get exhausted from just trying to understand the settings, background and how to play of each Final Fantasy.
    I also try not to buy games that appear to be hardcore, since I know I will put them in the stack of games which I will never play again.

    If a player is allowed to choose how hardcore he/she wants for every game to be, then there would be no distinction between casual and hardcore.
    Adding "beginner" option to the game with weaker enemies is not enough, but the whole system in the game should be simplified for beginners.

  20. In fact, the discussion about casual games and hardcore games last week reminded me of the magic circle again.
    I don't wanna to talk about defination, but to think about the difference. sometimes, players tend to think hardcore games as a more professional way to play. In their opinion ,casual games are distinct from hardcore games by the hardness to play. However, I feel it just like that each game does have the two arrows pointing out the way you can go, more casual?or more hardcore. But sometimes, it's easily to getting in stereotype of thinking how to play games.
    Each game does have its magic circle aiming for different audience. we just could say that this game is more tend to be a casual game. but regarding to the way to play it , it really up to the players.
    I feel it is the blurred line of the 2 types of games that brings us the most possibility of how games could be in different way to play.

  21. Agree with Candy. You can't just say that hardcore is good and that casual is bad. I myself rarely play games any more and that doesn't make me 'unfit' to work in the games industry in the future. I'm still interested in game mechanics and what draws people to start and continue playing a game.

    I also agree with Momo that the players are the one who choose how to play the game. I used to play CS 1.6 for 10-12 hours straight each day. I'd spend hours practising my recoil control and bunnyhop and I'd flip out if some noob came in and ruined my game by giving away my position or [insert stupid mistake here].

    But now I play in a more casual way. I feel more relaxed and don't really pay attention to technique and finesse - I just play for the fun of playing and not to win. Maybe you could consider this 'casual gaming' as opposed to me camping for hours on end in an aim map, which would generally be labelled 'hardcore freak.'

  22. Agree with Candy. You can't just say that hardcore is good and that casual is bad. I myself rarely play games any more and that doesn't make me 'unfit' to work in the games industry in the future. I'm still interested in game mechanics and what draws people to start and continue playing a game.

    I also agree with Momo that the players are the one who choose how to play the game. I used to play CS 1.6 for 10-12 hours straight each day. I'd spend hours practising my recoil control and wallbanging and I'd flip out if some noob came in and ruined my game by giving away my position or ff-ing me.

    But now I play in a more casual way. I feel more relaxed and don't really pay attention to technique and finesse - I just play for the fun of playing and not to win. Maybe you could consider this 'casual gaming' as opposed to me camping for hours on end in an aim map, where I would generally be labelled 'hardcore freak.'

  23. I agree pretty well with what's being said, about how we shouldn't be so quick to lable people and games as being casual and hardcore. Even if we were to, its really hard to define where one stops and the other starts; personally, for example, I feel as if I'm somewhere in between, if anything it's just a scale we can use.

    As for the interesting discussion we had about Nintendo targeting 'casual gamers', while it is sad they're somewhat abondoning us for the greater market - they couldn't really compete against the Playstation and the xBox in the 'hardcore' market. And, in the long run it could be more benifical for gaming industry anyway as it exposes a greater classes of people to games who otherwise would have overlooked them and whom may grow to be more 'hardcore' gamers as a result.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

  25. Hey guys
    Great lecture last week, i really enjoyed the first groups talk on the casual games industy. The second groups talk on Arcade Gaming was also really entertaining and intresting, you could tell that they had put genuine thought into there topic. I especially enjoyed their video that showed how bystanders can effectivly become a part of the magic circle.

    We need more Videos!!! they really help to put ideas into perspective.

    On the topic of the casual games/ hardcore video games industry. Whilst I agree that it is a pointless effort to try to distingush casual games from hardcore games, I think that it is important to catagorize them. perhaps not so ambiguosly.

    I really think that the casual games industry has hurt the mainstream games industry. When you consider that casual gamers number at least 150 million strong (according to a sensis by the casual gamers association) and that it is estimated that in the year 2013 the casual games Industry will have made 1 billion dollars, you would think that the mainstream games industry would at least show interest in casual games.

    That will mean less investment into mainstream games. The evidence for this? you need not look further the nintendo which has undoubtedly turned there back on the main bulk of nintendo fans.

    Despite all this, I think the real problem with the modern Video Games Industry as a whole is that they have forgotten the true spirit of video games.
    You can hardly blame the casual games industry for making an attempt to not only rediscover the essense of "Game" in video game, but to also find ways in which to incoperate video games into our daily lives.