The Birdman Fallacy
June 9th, 2008It’s somewhat rare that I agree so utterly with the first half of an article and so completely disagree with the second portion. Yet here we are.
Sean Malstrom begins with an eloquent explication of the fallacy at the heart of Nintendo copycats everywhere, viz. that people who have bought Nintendo’s casual games will buy anyone’s casual games (or indeed, that what primarily attracts them is the fact that they are casual rather than some other feature). As he notes, companies seem to have confused “casual” with “bad” or at least view them interchangeably. I suggest you read it, the writing really is unusually clear.
Then, in my view, his piece goes off the rails.
My first disagreement arises in the rather black-and-white statement that “there is no casual gamer.” This provocative assertion seems to rest on Malstrom’s equation of “casual” gamers with disinterested gamers, in the same way that those who do not care about audio equipment start on low-end equipment, and then become more enmeshed as time goes on and they find something worth listening to. Malstrom elaborates further on this premise as the article continues. He connects the idea to games like Diablo and World of Warcraft, which he says almost “trick” gamers into quick immersion through speeding up their advancement in the game. This seems to me to be woefully misguided, a misinterpretation of casual gamers as disengaged and unevolved hardcore gamers. Basically, Malstrom to me appears to be commiting a similar fallacy to the one he condemns: to him, casual gamers are just hardcore gamers who haven’t learned enough about hardcore games to figure out that they should like them. In other words, casual gamers don’t exist… everyone has identical tastes, even if they don’t know it yet.
This is, in my view, Malstrom’s first mistake. The numbers seem pretty undeniable: there is a definite contingent of people who play only casual games and have no interest in migrating upstream (although presumably some casual gamers may do so). There are a number of very real and no less valid reasons that casual gamers may do so: they have limited time, they like something extremely simple and repetitive, they prefer electronic versions of games that they enjoy offline… the list goes on and on. But the fact that both casual and hardcore gamers may enjoy electronic games is hardly sufficient to assert that they possess fundamentally identical tastes.
As I see it, he then compounds this mistake further. Malstrom asserts that 8-bit games of yesterday constitute today’s casual games. I will give him Pac-Man, which is extremely simple and repetitive. Yet to assert that Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehog constitutes an older casual game is, I would argue, pretty absurd. SMB and Sonic are primitive, by today’s standards, true. Yet they have few if any standard elements of casual games: they are fairly complex in structure, require significant reflexes, have internal logic that takes time to learn… in short, I know few if any casual gamers who play these games, alone or as a predecessor to more modern games. “Old” is not the same as “casual” in the same that that “stupid” is neither.
Ultimately, I think that Malstrom is trying to create something of an artificial distinction here between genres. The genres arose because the increasing diversity and complexity of modern games - in terms of their rule structure - required codification to make those distinctions easily comprehensible. Yet the fact that puzzle games tend to be played more by casual gamers than hardcore gamers is an artificial distinction, an artifact of the genre classification that has developed. Casual gamers don’t prefer puzzle games to FPS games per se: they prefer the underlying characteristics of the former games to those of the latter - they’re slower, require no reflexes or complex controls, and so on. Hello, birdman.
Where I think the big issue lies here then is confusion of casual and downmarket games. Downmarket games definitely exist. But downmarket games are those that are of poorer quality than AAA titles and therefore sell at a discount. They’re hardcore games for people who like that style of game but are price-sensitive. Casual games, on the other hand, are not poor quality. They’re high-quality casual games, or simplified games that sell at a discount to hardcore AAA titles not because they’re worse but because they’re simpler and can thus be made more cheaply while targeting customers who aren’t as willing to pay for any games. Once again, characteristics overlap… but the overlap exists for entirely separate reasons, much like the Panda’s Thumb.
Malstrom is ultimately correct that casual gaming is an overhyped meme. I don’t think it’s got nearly the punch that people or industry figures would like to believe, and any perusal of our previous posts will suggest strongly that we agree. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking they don’t exist at all.
Posted in Geoff, Industry |
June 10th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Actually, I think the original Super Mario Bros, and perhaps several other older generation games, DO have casual appeal for the simple reason that there are only 2 buttons and a D-pad (or at most 6 buttons and a d-pad if you want to include the SNES). I actually do know of a few “casual” or even mostly non-gamers that actually like these older games, and their simplicity in controls is a big part of it.
This, of course, has been one of Nintendo’s design considerations for the past few generations after recognizing the simple fact that the ever-increasing number of buttons on Game Pads, among other things, alienated a lot of those casual players. Hence the design of the Wii Remote, which has several buttons, but essentially only prominently features the top-side “A” and under-side “B” button. With motion controls and the “pointer” replacing the D-pad, Nintendo has effectively gone back to controller square one, just with some well-hyped (and potentially intuitive) technology.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I agree they have *more* casual appeal, insofar as they are simpler to control with just an A and B button… but they’re far from “casual games.” Again, this confuses the appeal of one element of casual games, in conjunction with anecdotes about a handful of people who like the game for that reason, with the proliferation of people playing games like Scrabulous. There’s overlap but it’s highly limited.
The current demographic of casual games as they’re currently talked about is both substantially larger and more consistent than those few individuals.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I’m on the same side as Jeff:
Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that there are casual gamers but no casual games. There may be games that appeal more or less to hardcore or casual gamers.
I think that the biggest argument for this is that Sonic and Mario games are very often much loved by people who i would not consider gamers - casual or otherwise - but they say that they play easy games. Funnily enough i only ever completed each of the first three Sonic games once and these tasks almost brought me to the edge of my sanity - they weren’t ‘easy’ games… just easy to play and understand.
Geoff: What’s your definition of a casual game? How can you differentiate them from games that are “hardcore games for people who like that style of game”?
A person my play Draughts/Checkers (which i consider a casual-style of game in comparison with Chess) in a hardcore manner. The build quality of the game is unquestionable but there is a certain amount of depth there from which parallels can be drawn towards gem-matching games that target casual gamers.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Duoae,
I’d agree that casual games/gamers are more of a continuum than a clear division. That said, I think you can draw a reasonable line between casual and hardcore. Here’s a working man’s definition of a casual game/r:
- Spends an average of less than 30 minutes on a given game
- Doesn’t play games that require more than 2-4 “actions” on a regular basis (this would be something like pressing a button, swinging a controller, moving and clicking a mouse, etc.)
- Games are repetitive in terms of action and structure
- Favor thought or analysis over twitch/reflex dependencies
- Perhaps most importantly, such gamers are uninterested in moving into more complex games at a later date
This definition is no doubt incomplete or lacking in some way. But I think it manages to capture the fact that some latent hardcore gamers are introduced to gaming through casual titles but find their true interest, whereas others are strictly interested in remaining casually interested in games. It also differentiates a game like Super Mario Bros. from Checkers, in that the former is reflex-based, requires a sustained investment of time, etc. (note that in a continuum a limited number of people who are not fully “hardcore” will still like games like SMB).
As you note, Sonic isn’t terribly complex in concept but is very difficult for non-twitch gamers unwilling to invest a lot of time. As a result, few casual gamers as defined above will enjoy it.
In general, I think drawing a distinction of this type is helpful, although it is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. The number of people interested in “gaming” as broadly defined has mushroomed (no pun intended) as games like Checkers have become more easily accessible. As a result, pretending that casual gaming is not a real-world trend seems to me to be delusional. I would argue that these distinctions are more helpful than pretending otherwise.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:04 am
I can see your point and i agree with your summary on the trend of casual gaming - as i tried to get across in my first post.
However, although i agree on the term and definition of ‘casual gamer’ - i’m finding it difficult to justify calling a game a casual game. Your definition above covers both - but you can’t cover both the user and the activity when describing something.
Removing the points for the casual gamers you end up with as a definition for a casual game:
- Games are repetitive in terms of action and structure
- Favor thought or analysis over twitch/reflex dependencies
I can’t agree with these. RPGs - specifically of the JRPG sort aren’t twitch dependent but cover both of those points. Things like ’sims’ such as Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing are known for being played by more casual gamers and both fulfill the above conditions but i wouldn’t class them as casual games.
Most of the games targeted at casual gamers (gem games, word making games such as Fowl Words) also come with timers and difficulty levels but because of these additions to the core gameplay they start to fall outside of that twitch/no twitch definition.
I think that the industry (and gamers) would benefit from not trying to distinguish between games in this manner. In the same way that you say that not acknowledging that casual gamers exist is detrimental, i think that believing that certain game-types/genres are ‘casual’ is also detrimental.
I’d like to draw a parallel with the ‘girl gaming’ or ‘games for girls’ focus that has permeated the industry for the last few years.
James Scalpello has a great quote (link below) on girl gaming that i agree with:
“I don’t think there’s ever been a successful game really pinpointed just for girls. I think it’s a lost cause, quite frankly. Car manufacturers colour code bits of cars and for some reason it works. But it doesn’t work with mobile games.”
http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/27515/Games-for-girls-are-a-lost-cause
While he’s talking specifically about mobile games i believe that the thinking can be extrapolated to the rest of the gaming world. It’s (supposedly) the reason why Will Wright’s games have been so successful - they don’t label the game as ‘for him/her/young/old/casual hardcore’; they are just games and he makes sure that they appeal to the broadest audience possible. I’m pretty sure there are a load of hardcore players and casual players of The Sims. I’ve never touched any of those games…. but then they don’t appeal to me.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Duoae,
Other items can be reconfigured to specify games. For example, “A session can be played to completion in an average of 30 min or less” would exclude RPGs but include the Sims. The latter has no defined start or end but a meaningful “round” or session can be finished in that period of time. This same point gets to the distinction between a Scrabble game with a timer and Sonic the Hedgehog.
But you’re right in terms of genre definition. Again, there’s more of a continuum here than a strict definition. That said, I see it being a lot easier to create a casual puzzle game than a casual RTS, particularly because an RTS is in part defined by its complexity.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
(One more point - the criteria I specified are necessary in conjunction, not in isolation. A casual game by my definition would need to satisfy all of those conditions, not any specific one alone.) But again, it’s something of an artificial distinction.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I do agree. I guess i’m just getting sour on the whole ‘casual game’ moniker. Perhaps we need a new descriptor.
I just also want to say that i’m not trying to beat down your opinion here - i’m a bit conscious that i’m harping on about one point.
Thanks for the discussion.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Hmm… I still think there’s something missing here:
Geoff, while I agree that there are certain intricacies for games like Mario and Sonic that may make them more “hardcore”, it’s not necessary to understand them, or to even really care about them, for “casual gamers” to enjoy them. The “30 minutes or less” could still apply, as they may not really care about completing the game, just playing it for kicks.
Has anyone else ever watched a sort of non-gamer play Super Mario Bros? They often don’t use the run button… but they still have fun just wandering through the levels, jumping around, hitting blocks and stomping on goombas. Maybe when they get more into it, they try to incorporate the “run” into their style, but for the most part, it’s unimportant to them.
According to some recent stats as well, the average amount of time spent on “casual games” is about 5.1 hours per week. I had a little trouble finding the data for this, but this is supposedly not that far off from what the “average gamer” spends, which is 6.5 hours per week. This would suggest that the “casual gamer” moniker may be a bit misleading, as they may spend almost as much time playing games per week as the “average” gamer, but they just choose to play different kinds of games. This actually helps explain the Wii’s success as well.
Links to articles with stats:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9400&Itemid=2
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2003/08/60204