In class we spent some time trying to differentiate between “Hard Core” and “Casual” video game players. This kind of endeavor usually results in a fairly good list, but it’s likely more can be added to it. I’ve decided to post it here to see what people think.
Hard core and casual video gamers
Some characteristics that might help define the two types.
HardCore are likely to play almost every day.
Casual play now and again or frequently, varies a lot.
But the HardCore will spend a lot more time per week playing, than the Casual.
Casual play in "short sessions" (think “Bejewled”).
Often, the game is over quickly, but you play the game many times over the course of weeks or months.
HardCore play in "long sessions" (several hours).
Usually the game takes a long time to finish, and you may play it only once,
because you've figured out all the puzzles,
OR because now you know the story.
Casual games are often of the "you don't have to concentrate constantly on the game" type.
HardCore games are often "you have to concentrate constantly or you'll get dead". Or if you don’t need to concentrate constantly, you still need to think a lot or you’ll lose. (Think Civilization.)
HardCore probably don't have a "favorite game" over a long period (years)--because they "finish" games and are done with them.
Casual may have a favorite game over a long period, but the “cult of the new” is strong today, so they may continue to move on to new games frequently.
HardCore are usually competitive (or pseudo-competitive, e.g. when comparing scores or time taken to complete a game for single-player games). They see the game as an adversary and want to “beat it”.
Casual tend not to be very competitive.
“Achievements” are of interest to HardCore, rarely to Casual players.
HardCore are often more concerned with “the destination” than with “the journey”, but this can extend to Casual as well. Casual tend to want to play something that they can enjoy while playing, rather than enjoy only when they’ve finished (“beat the game”). If a game is “too much like work”, they’ll stop playing it; the HardCore often continue to play in this situation in order to reach the goal of beating the game.
HardCore are rarely playing “to relax”. Casual often play a short session “to relax”, then go back to the real world.
I don’t know which of these video gamer types is more likely to play non-electronic games. The popular board and card games of today tend to be “Casual” more than “HardCore” experiences. (Forget traditional games, I’m talking about hobby games such as Settlers of Catan, Dominion, Carcassonne, and so forth.)
|
Those that can be classified as hardcore tend to seek validation in games. It is likely the reason why they don't play "to relax" as you say (though there's usually some for of release or sublimation associated with their play). The hardcores typically consider themselves "gamers" and therefore view every game as a chance to prove themselves or hone their skills. More importantly, they seek more serious and meaningful experiences from games than their casual counterparts.
It's all about the value and importance they place on games. A hardcore player is just as likely to become frustrated with a game as a casual one, but they're far more likely to dedicate the time and effort it requires to overcome the challenge it presents; while a casual gamer may simply move on to a different activity.
Taken out of video game terms: If I go to the park and throw a Frisbee around with a friend, it's just for fun. If I'm terrible at it, I'll just have more laughs. I'm not concerned with improving or how this session could affect my skills. If I were an Ultimate Frisbee player, however, all of this would matter. And even casual sessions begin to seem more like practice.
Fortunately, video games are not a single sport. And it is my belief that players can be "hardcore" in one genre and casual for another. This is one reason that such a generalized classification is so difficult to make.
Here is an article I wrote a while back that you might find of interest. It was also inspired by one of your previous entries:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/EnriqueDryere/20090917/3064/Gimme_Five_The_Branch
ing_Path_of_Future_Games.php
Also, not to speak for him, but what about some of the definitions that Chris Bateman has suggested? For example, Hardcore = "gamer hobbyists" while Casual = "mass market," or Hardcore = "prefers a 'punishing' game" while Casual = "prefers a 'forgiving' game." (http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2008/09/redefining-hardcore-casual.html)
For my part, the one word I keep finding myself using in discussing Hardcore/Casual is "investment." The typical Hardcore player (as I see it) invests personally in the gameworld, while the classic Casual player is mostly or fully divested.
The Hardcore gamer is willing and able to talk about the gameworld as though it matters, and doesn't mind being seen as caring about the characters and places and internal rules of the gameworld. By contrast, it's almost always a Casual gamer who declares "it's just a game" and prefers to be perceived as holding it at (emotional) arms-length.
If there's anything to that theory, maybe it speaks to why different gamers spend more or less playing time per session, and why they prefer deeper and more challenging games or simpler and easier-to-put-down games.
Hard core gamers want to be Challenged by your gameplay mechanics.
Casual players want to be Entertained by your graphics and story.
And of course that is just a guideline, not an absolute.
Casual players want to be Entertained by your graphics and story."
.. So that'd make halo a casual game then?
Don't confuse players with games.
The best games, with 90+ reviews and millions of sales (like halo), appeal to all types of players.
I wrote about that many times before; auto-aim, body shots instead of headshots, kill stealing, bad stats sheet at the end of a match, a player do not have to master a weapon, but need instead the right weapon for the right situation, radar screwing the level design, no sounds for footsteps, etc. Halo is very casual.
However, if you never played any other FPS before, maybe Halo doesn't look so casual after all. Because there are a lot of new gamers on the X-Box Live, I do believe in the possibility that a lot of them also see Halo 3 as the standard of the FPS genre - it's so far from that.
---------------
This article is cool, but I don't get why people get so passionate about Hardcore & Casual gamers. Only the "dedication" of a player can decide of how deep the experience can be. Short, long, difficult, easy to master, harder to master, etc. It shouldn't matter.
The only thing that should matter is the kind of game we want to make (what indirectly involve the public we aim to satisfy). I work in a "casual oriented" game company and, even here, most designers do not really agree on that existing separation.
Do you?
I often log in into a 5-minute match of UT3 or CS. It would be considered casual, but the games wouldn't.
If I like one singleplayer game, I play until I finish it, but never to finish it (I don't get the american thing of "beating" a game, neither the throw the controller for loosing and the award-whore thing), when a singleplayer game that I like (or have good expectations of) ends, I'm disappointed for it.
I only work hard playing against puzzle or puzzle-like challenges that are a block between me and the gameplay I like and what the game has to show next. But it's common to restart level and bosses fight after finishing it, just to enjoy again or save more ammunition and health.
-------------------
I think definitions of "hardcore" and "casual" gamers never really does right. If I'd say, it's juas a matter of being and and looking simple. So "casual player" are those who whould like to play if games where not complicated. The "hardcore" side really can't be addressed as a whole, so if it's to really make a black-and-white definition, "hardcore" are just the "gamers" (everyone that isn't in the "casual" side).
Hardcore = Gamer
Casual = Potential Gamer
--------------
@Corey Navage
"Hard core gamers want to be Challenged by your gameplay mechanics.
Casual players want to be Entertained by your graphics and story."
The considered "hardcore" gamers are most likelly to be graphics-oriented, story-oriented, and they like to be challenged buy the challenges, having seemless mechanics and input to face the challenges. But as always, there are too many different players-types to consider a huge group as hardcore. So your definition could work.
--------------------------
I still prefer to think towards niches, specially making a game for the niche you're part of and it has good chances to become a good game. Do we really need a casual/hardcore definition? It don't think it's gonna make any Holy Grail to black-and-white what makes a good game, really.
Just seems there is way too much cross-over when anyone tries to define them any other way, not there isn't still some cross-over with this set of definitions.
Reality is always more complicated than we can understand. We have to simplify it in order to deal with it successfully. So it isn’t uncommon to divide something you’re trying to understand into two categories, even though we know that reality is much more varied (more “analog”) than this. A common division of video game players is Hard Core and Casual.
The definition is NOT a matter of whether a person is a good (or even “bad-ass”) player or not so good. HardCore will tend to be better players of typical challenge-based games by virtue of more experience, and because they care more whether they play well or not. Casual players are not as concerned with whether they win or lose, or how well they play. HardCore tend to like challenges, Casual tend to like “entertainment.”
HardCore tend to like games that punish failure (which usually means, the challenges are tougher), while Casual like games that are more forgiving of “errors” (or even, don’t involve “errors” or failure).
HardCore are more “invested” in games: they are more ego-involved in whether they succeed or not, they care more about the community and culture surrounding video games, whereas the Casual players tend not to be ego-involved and tend not to care about the culture, they just want to play a game. In the extreme, the HardCore depend on games for much of their self-esteem, reveling in being a “bad-ass gamer” even though, viewed from the real world, being a bad-ass gamer is almost always worthless.
HardCore tend to become more emotionally involved in the characters and world of a video game, while Casual tend to separate themselves from the game, to hold it at arms’ length.
I see it more as like this: "Hardcore gamer" describes a self-conscious culture of people who actively play and identify themselves with other players of videogames. The culture is sub-divided into several strata (console, PC, etc) and genre tags (FPS, RPG, etc) and so is somewhat amorphous in nature but has a "you know it when you see it" quality.
Casual is the hardcore game culture word for "everybody else". Casual simply means outside-the-culture. Thus it is also mutable, and this allows for distinctions such as Tetris (hardcore), Bejewelled (casual), World of Warcraft (hardcore), FarmVille (casual) and so on.
There is no objective reality to this. Casual is simply a term for "other".
This can be debated since achievements started in casual games (Pogo i believe) and then moved to more hardcore formats (Xbox 360 and others)
If what you say is true "that casual players are not as concerned with whether they win or lose, or how well they play", then it is completely wrong to offer auto-aim and casual features in games nowdays, right? At least, that's what I think.
A lot of so called casual-players do complain on forums that competitive games are to hard and that it's not fun to lose. The only conclusion I could came up is that a lot of gamers have a big ego - it's not just the hardcore and actually in 2009, the Ego is the biggest problem. I know a lot of gamers that you would call hardcore and are totally not into the ego based competition at all. I also know a gamer that you would call casual who wants to have a Big Daddy tatoo on her.
In the end, I don't think it is necessary to encourage a separation like hardcore and casual gamers when there isn't really any.
Yes, ego is a really big problem, one of the reasons why the world at large still looks down on video games, because that egotism is ridiculously childish.
@Soren Achievements are often related to the ego-involvement. Yet they certainly mean nothing in the real world (especially when it's easy to find games where you can run up achievement points automatically).
I'd be quite surprised to find a casual gamer who thinks achievements are important, but undoubtedly there are a few who do.
@Tadhg So what separates the casual gamer from those who, practically speaking if not literally, don't play at all? Yes, there really are lots of people who virtually never play video games. No, casual isn't just "other".
The words "hardcore" and "casual" are bad to try to define players with them. As I said, I'd call "casual" a potential player, who didn't find games appealing to him/her yet. After start playing, everyone is a player. Saying somebody is a "casual player" doesn't make too much sense, but saying a game has "casual" appealing, it means it's not for the mainstream gamer.
And the "hardcore player" definitions I've seen so far are more like kids needing help, not even gamers or professional player are that insane too often. Or maybe it's just a cultural difference rather than player difference.
A few people believes that if you increase the duration of an Online match up to 1 or more hours, it is more hardcore. It's not, you are just reducing the size of your public target, but that kind of game could still be a casual game.
Unfortunately, the industry took the separation way too seriously and dumbed down most of the existing games we have since at least 5 years. I think it really needs to stop and shaking things up here is a good way to express it. The hardcore gamer is the most experienced of both types and if you can satisfy him, you can satisfy the casual gamer. However, if you can satisfy a casual gamer, you won't necessarily satisfy the hardcore, because the game isn't good enough regarding his past experiences. Both types share the same player psychology and are entertained the same way.
Why would you add auto-aim to a console game when playing with a game controller and "harder to master" thumbsticks make it so great. Yes, a controller doesn't feel and aim like a mouse and keyboard - it works differently and that's what is fun about it. The thumbsticks aren't less accurate, but they take a bit more time to master. By that fact, it takes also more time to warm up, so potentially the mass of player on console is rarely as accurate as PC players and you know what? That's perfect! It's perfect because it generates longer gunfights in FPS games between the players. It's perfect because a gamer has less risk to get bored because it's too easy to aim, because console games keeps being more and more challenging to play with a game controller; in the end it's more fun. That's unfortunately one example among many others, but so called "casual feautres" doesn't help us making better games and it doesn't help to appeal to a larger audience that is basically all the same (I mean between casual and harcore and not RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.).