www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Monday, June 18, 2007
Defining casual
In a recent comment a reader asked me to define "casual". That is actually a tricky question, because I've never seen a clear definition, and most people disagree where to draw the line between casual and hardcore. One solution is add some sort of middle-class, the semi-casual, but then again you can start argueing where exactly the borders are between casual, semi-casual, and hardcore.
Many people try to base their definition on hours played. If you play only 1 hour per week you are definitely casual. If you play 100 hours you are definitely hardcore. But at what number of hours per week do you define the border? 10? 20? 40? We'll never agree, because counting just the hours doesn't completely cover the problem. It is only a starting point. You have to ask yourself not only how many hours do I play, but also what would I have done with those hours if I hadn't played?
So I would define "casual player" as somebody who uses the game as entertainment for his spare hours, but for whom the rest of his life always takes precedence. While "hardcore" is somebody for whom the game has become a greater purpose, and he is willing to make compromises and sacrifice time he would otherwise have spent studying, working, or for real life social activities. The difference is not time spent, or skill, but commitment.
That definition explains a lot about the respective attitudes towards raiding. The problem with raiding for the casual player is often having to be online at a specific time and for a specific block of time, together with the other raiders. If each raider is only playing when he has the free time for it, it is impossible to get a raiding schedule organized. And if you organize 10, 25, or 40 players for blocks of several hours on several nights a week, it is impossible for everybody to attend without making compromises with his real life schedule.
To be "casual friendly" a game needs to have a lot of solo content, and it must be possible for a quickly thrown together pickup group to advance through the group content. That limits the difficulty the game can throw at the players: If group content needs a specific group mix it takes too long to organize groups, and somebody having to leave a group for some real life incident turns into a risk for the whole group. If the group content becomes so hard that people need to practice the same encounter repeatedly and learn how to coordinate with a specific group of people, playing with pickup groups becomes impossible. The impression that casual players are not playing as well as hardcore players is only true on a group level, due to the necessity for the casual player to play with whoever is available. On the individual level the casual player is playing as well as the hardcore player.
- posted by Tobold @ 7:46 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I would add a third term - Social.
The main issue with Casual vs Hardcore is not the definition of the two terms. "Casual" only seems to exist to define anyone not "Hardcore".
The main issue with Casual vs Hardcore is not the definition of the two terms. "Casual" only seems to exist to define anyone not "Hardcore".
Hmm an intriguing definition. I like it. Simply because it actually also fits my own use of the even more gnarly word "semi-casual". Those would be folks who make some sacrifices to raid but are not willing to go to extremes, like dumping their real-life or in-game friends for progress, min/max, raid long hours, or raid more than they can sensibly justify fitting their schedule, don't excessively neglect RL commitments.
A remark. I recently was at a conference where a academic working on the theory of games put up a slide of casual vs hardcore games and WoW was at the very hardcore end. I was surprised and asked why he did that. He said that casual gaming allows you to play 5-15 minutes. Stuff that you can instantly start and instantly stop, like maybe Snood. That completely changed my frame of mind about WoW, where you can very little but maybe trade skills and farm a few motes in a 5 minute time frame.
But that too fits your definition. A lot of us actually would love a smaller play-time granularity. Even the 60-120 minutes that instances are now tuned for is large and by the game-theorists standards definitely hardcore.
Of course those who consider themselves hardcore in WoW (or EQ) are really way beyond casual and way beyond some rather large group of people who actually are already hardcore because WoW takes more time than they actually honestly want to spend, hence forcing them over the commitment boundary that you defined.
A remark. I recently was at a conference where a academic working on the theory of games put up a slide of casual vs hardcore games and WoW was at the very hardcore end. I was surprised and asked why he did that. He said that casual gaming allows you to play 5-15 minutes. Stuff that you can instantly start and instantly stop, like maybe Snood. That completely changed my frame of mind about WoW, where you can very little but maybe trade skills and farm a few motes in a 5 minute time frame.
But that too fits your definition. A lot of us actually would love a smaller play-time granularity. Even the 60-120 minutes that instances are now tuned for is large and by the game-theorists standards definitely hardcore.
Of course those who consider themselves hardcore in WoW (or EQ) are really way beyond casual and way beyond some rather large group of people who actually are already hardcore because WoW takes more time than they actually honestly want to spend, hence forcing them over the commitment boundary that you defined.
# posted by 
: 18/6/07 09:31
: 18/6/07 09:31
Your definition of casual certainly fits me Tobold. I manage to play about 20 hours per week. Much of my playing time is grabbed in short bursts fitted in between real life commitments. I love grouping but the demands of real life require that I be able to form a group and get a mission over with fairly quickly. Anything that takes more than one hour is going to be a problem for me.
Yet my non-game playing family and friends would consider me an addicted gamer. They find the concept that a grown man could spend 3 hours every day playing games quite bizarre.
Yet my non-game playing family and friends would consider me an addicted gamer. They find the concept that a grown man could spend 3 hours every day playing games quite bizarre.
Let's not split hairs. Most hardcore players raid, and most casual players don't raid. There are exceptions, but a player's attitude about raiding is as good a benchmark as any.
# posted by : 18/6/07 10:55
: 18/6/07 10:55
Don't remember where but I had read a definition of casual/hardcore... that at least should fit level based MMORPG's...
"Casual gaming ends at level cap"
I don't mind having "casual" and "hardcore" togheter. I know that there always be someone with better gear, gold and has visited more places than me. If someone has more time or is able to play better than me... that's okey.
Speaking about level based games, it's obvious that is better to add new content at the end of the game. New content for level cap that inserting something new at early or mid ranged levels. This because sooner or later everyone will reach level cap and anything below is just a transition.
Harcore players will commit a lot more time in a short time and will get at cap sooner... but anyway everyone will given a proper amount of time. (Even me was able to reach 70 in wow, so everyone can ^_^)
So, when cap is reached what happens? Developers have to find ways to keep people playing. And unfortunatly usually they choose do to so in the easiest manner. Creating content that by design has to be repeated and reused so much, ad nauseam, and making it extremely difficult. That is diluting content over time to prevent hardcore players to consume too much new content in a very short time period.
I define myself a casual gamer even if I happen to play many hours a week. I define myself casual as I don't like forced and narrow content. Is it fun to do same dungeon every day? I like variety but what if I can't do another dungeon until I had already finished (many times) the previous one?
"Casual gaming ends at level cap"
I don't mind having "casual" and "hardcore" togheter. I know that there always be someone with better gear, gold and has visited more places than me. If someone has more time or is able to play better than me... that's okey.
Speaking about level based games, it's obvious that is better to add new content at the end of the game. New content for level cap that inserting something new at early or mid ranged levels. This because sooner or later everyone will reach level cap and anything below is just a transition.
Harcore players will commit a lot more time in a short time and will get at cap sooner... but anyway everyone will given a proper amount of time. (Even me was able to reach 70 in wow, so everyone can ^_^)
So, when cap is reached what happens? Developers have to find ways to keep people playing. And unfortunatly usually they choose do to so in the easiest manner. Creating content that by design has to be repeated and reused so much, ad nauseam, and making it extremely difficult. That is diluting content over time to prevent hardcore players to consume too much new content in a very short time period.
I define myself a casual gamer even if I happen to play many hours a week. I define myself casual as I don't like forced and narrow content. Is it fun to do same dungeon every day? I like variety but what if I can't do another dungeon until I had already finished (many times) the previous one?
There's an interesting take on it, Challenge vs Engagement, here: http://www.heimburg.com/blog/?p=29
Today it is impossible to come up with clear player type definitions. There is your 20 hour per week casual trying to find groups and there is your 20 hour per week casual, member of a focused guild who always has a secured raid spot in well coordianted raids.
Total playtime isn't really a measure anymore, chunks of time may be, but you can not built complex MMOs around sub-1 hour timeframes. The topic is way too complex to sum it up in a few sentences. My main concern is that MMOs have to monitor their audience way more than now and serve content wich the majority of them can and will use. That may be casual or hardcore content but at least it's played content. No matter what player group you focus, you will face problems.
Let's take the infamous WoW 2.0 endgame. Reading from the few guilds that actually play there, it is high quality content nevertheless. It's just inaccessible for most players. If Blizzard would open it up i am sure, that the quality of the content would suffer. The game is at a point where the designers have to choose between high quality or accessibilty. The game is too progressed and to flawless, to combine both right now. Casual raiding encounter-wise was climaxed in WoW 1.0. If you try to improve it, you get inaccessibility ("Karazhan is too hard").
I'm certain that future MMOs with mass audiences, have to aim at a sweetspot between casuals and hardcore, that may be the smallest group total, but this group can lure casuals and hardcore into them, while obviously you will never get casuals to do hardcore content and vice versa. We are looking at those 20 hours per week players, who read MMO news sites and forums on a regular basis, who lead and organize raids, if they look doable with their guild.
Total playtime isn't really a measure anymore, chunks of time may be, but you can not built complex MMOs around sub-1 hour timeframes. The topic is way too complex to sum it up in a few sentences. My main concern is that MMOs have to monitor their audience way more than now and serve content wich the majority of them can and will use. That may be casual or hardcore content but at least it's played content. No matter what player group you focus, you will face problems.
Let's take the infamous WoW 2.0 endgame. Reading from the few guilds that actually play there, it is high quality content nevertheless. It's just inaccessible for most players. If Blizzard would open it up i am sure, that the quality of the content would suffer. The game is at a point where the designers have to choose between high quality or accessibilty. The game is too progressed and to flawless, to combine both right now. Casual raiding encounter-wise was climaxed in WoW 1.0. If you try to improve it, you get inaccessibility ("Karazhan is too hard").
I'm certain that future MMOs with mass audiences, have to aim at a sweetspot between casuals and hardcore, that may be the smallest group total, but this group can lure casuals and hardcore into them, while obviously you will never get casuals to do hardcore content and vice versa. We are looking at those 20 hours per week players, who read MMO news sites and forums on a regular basis, who lead and organize raids, if they look doable with their guild.
# posted by : 18/6/07 13:04
: 18/6/07 13:04
Following my comment about time spent playing I realise that there is another thing which makes me a casual player. I have never played any one game for longer than 6 months before moving on to something else. I just don't stick around long enough to get to the really hardcore endgame stuff.
For me this is an entirely valid choice. I like to experience many different games.
For me this is an entirely valid choice. I like to experience many different games.
I would add a third term - Social.
The main issue with Casual vs Hardcore is not the definition of the two terms. "Casual" only seems to exist to define anyone not "Hardcore".
If you start adding other values to this discussion you might as well go with the well known Bartle test. Personally I don't really think that it matters much to the casual vs hardcore definition. You can just as well be a hardcore player that socialize as one that is a casual player that socialize. It's like comparing, how do you say it, "apples and oranges"? The Bartle test tries to measure what type of activity you like to do ingame, not how dedicated you are to doing it.
The main issue with Casual vs Hardcore is not the definition of the two terms. "Casual" only seems to exist to define anyone not "Hardcore".
If you start adding other values to this discussion you might as well go with the well known Bartle test. Personally I don't really think that it matters much to the casual vs hardcore definition. You can just as well be a hardcore player that socialize as one that is a casual player that socialize. It's like comparing, how do you say it, "apples and oranges"? The Bartle test tries to measure what type of activity you like to do ingame, not how dedicated you are to doing it.
# posted by : 18/6/07 13:18
: 18/6/07 13:18
Any category in the Bartle test can be hardcore or casual. Think hardcore RPers, or hardcore PVPers, or hardcore raiders. Playing type preference doesn't say much about how heavily folks will through themselves at content.
The crux of the definition is that the casual vs hardcore debate is being conducted over rather complex things that often are quite different. I certainly know lots of people who would call me extremely hardcore, yet I know others who consider me casual. If casual means ending at level cap, then "casual raider" would be a misnomer. But from past reading I know that Tobold fits more a "casual raider" description than someone who wanted to stop at level cap.
The real problem with TBC raiding is accessibility in a logistic sense and just minor points in tuning. A side problem is that the game doesn't safe-guard against excessive min-maxing (massive pot use for example) hence has pushed itself towards more hardcore.
Imaging if the alchemy fix would have been, no buffing pots in raids, and mana/health pots with 5 minute cooldowns. The game would involve less about planning your consumables, which is more in line with WoW 1.0. It still could be challanging technically.
Most "casual" raiders never had an issue with learning technically challanging encounters. Min/Maxing encounters (need max DPS, and chain potting healers, and chain chugging ironshielded warrior tanks to succeed).
The encounter design still overemphasizes qualities that only vanilla bleeding edge raiders would tolerate. Tigole was right to highlight and criticise that... Four Horsemen was no accessible and that was a problem. I hope Tigole's insights mean that future raid content will actually show more awareness of the accessibility issue, that is time spend outside raid, to get into raid and be able to succeed...
And yes I do believe that this can be done without sacrificing the quality of encounters, rather the opposite. Not pressing the pot button every 2 minutes will actually lead back to more interesting strategies, like healer rotations again, which in terms of dynamic problem solution is just way more interesting than min/maxed potting to coat over any strategic solutions.
The crux of the definition is that the casual vs hardcore debate is being conducted over rather complex things that often are quite different. I certainly know lots of people who would call me extremely hardcore, yet I know others who consider me casual. If casual means ending at level cap, then "casual raider" would be a misnomer. But from past reading I know that Tobold fits more a "casual raider" description than someone who wanted to stop at level cap.
The real problem with TBC raiding is accessibility in a logistic sense and just minor points in tuning. A side problem is that the game doesn't safe-guard against excessive min-maxing (massive pot use for example) hence has pushed itself towards more hardcore.
Imaging if the alchemy fix would have been, no buffing pots in raids, and mana/health pots with 5 minute cooldowns. The game would involve less about planning your consumables, which is more in line with WoW 1.0. It still could be challanging technically.
Most "casual" raiders never had an issue with learning technically challanging encounters. Min/Maxing encounters (need max DPS, and chain potting healers, and chain chugging ironshielded warrior tanks to succeed).
The encounter design still overemphasizes qualities that only vanilla bleeding edge raiders would tolerate. Tigole was right to highlight and criticise that... Four Horsemen was no accessible and that was a problem. I hope Tigole's insights mean that future raid content will actually show more awareness of the accessibility issue, that is time spend outside raid, to get into raid and be able to succeed...
And yes I do believe that this can be done without sacrificing the quality of encounters, rather the opposite. Not pressing the pot button every 2 minutes will actually lead back to more interesting strategies, like healer rotations again, which in terms of dynamic problem solution is just way more interesting than min/maxed potting to coat over any strategic solutions.
# posted by : 18/6/07 13:44
: 18/6/07 13:44
I think your last comment would only apply to end-game bosses, and even then only with regard to a specific group or way of doing it.
Being good at a group level in general has to do with how much you group vs solo. Even in PUGs you learn, and casual players can certainly be in guilds and get help and learn from them.
It seems the attitude and willingness to learn have little to do with how many hours played, since I have met people who play way more than me, who have raided further than I did, that are horrible group players. Casual/hardcore has little to do with how well you do it in a group. I think that's more about humility and being willing to learn and a desire to be part of a team rather than the star.
Playing in PUGs doesn't stop one from learning, just like playing with the same people at the same encounter doesn't mean one learned anything.
Being good at a group level in general has to do with how much you group vs solo. Even in PUGs you learn, and casual players can certainly be in guilds and get help and learn from them.
It seems the attitude and willingness to learn have little to do with how many hours played, since I have met people who play way more than me, who have raided further than I did, that are horrible group players. Casual/hardcore has little to do with how well you do it in a group. I think that's more about humility and being willing to learn and a desire to be part of a team rather than the star.
Playing in PUGs doesn't stop one from learning, just like playing with the same people at the same encounter doesn't mean one learned anything.
# posted by : 18/6/07 15:25
: 18/6/07 15:25
@mbp
"Yet my non-game playing family and friends would consider me an addicted gamer. They find the concept that a grown man could spend 3 hours every day playing games quite bizarre."
Boy do I hear that. I am 27 years old and was constantly told by my mother that games were something I should grow out of. Roll forward 20 odd years, and I'm still playing (and always will), I still get occasional grief from significant others (is it really any different from reading a book/watching TV?), and I also make a living making the damn things.
I'll wear them down eventually :)
"Yet my non-game playing family and friends would consider me an addicted gamer. They find the concept that a grown man could spend 3 hours every day playing games quite bizarre."
Boy do I hear that. I am 27 years old and was constantly told by my mother that games were something I should grow out of. Roll forward 20 odd years, and I'm still playing (and always will), I still get occasional grief from significant others (is it really any different from reading a book/watching TV?), and I also make a living making the damn things.
I'll wear them down eventually :)
I agree with your definitions, Tobold. Casual to me is basically the game as one of many activities, not something to push aside other RL things for. I've been the "hardcore raid" type at one point. Never again. I already have a job.
Nick and MBP: I'm with you. :) I compare video games to other things like books or tv. Books at least involve reading, but television is entirely passive entertainment. In games, I get to make part of the story. Most of the critisisms of my gameplay habits come from people that think nothing of vegging in front of the TV for a couple hours at a time.
Nick and MBP: I'm with you. :) I compare video games to other things like books or tv. Books at least involve reading, but television is entirely passive entertainment. In games, I get to make part of the story. Most of the critisisms of my gameplay habits come from people that think nothing of vegging in front of the TV for a couple hours at a time.
Let's not split hairs. Most hardcore players raid, and most casual players don't raid. There are exceptions, but a player's attitude about raiding is as good a benchmark as any.
That is only a good benchmark for some specific games, where the possibly more dedicated players ends up raiding and others don't, with a certain game from Blizzard as a good example and some games from SOE.
What if the game does not have raiding, or if raid encounters were such as that not a particularly long time was needed and the design was such as there would be little point in repeatedly running that encounter - e.g. no big phat loot that could not be obtained by other means?
Specific game mechanichs should be avoided if you want to make a generic definition.
I somewhat agree with Tobold take on defining casual vs hardcore, if one would try to make a definition. However, these are not two distinct sides, but rather a number of them.
Rather than talking about casual vs hardcore I think it would be better to talk how different games work with a number of different behaviour patterns.
That is only a good benchmark for some specific games, where the possibly more dedicated players ends up raiding and others don't, with a certain game from Blizzard as a good example and some games from SOE.
What if the game does not have raiding, or if raid encounters were such as that not a particularly long time was needed and the design was such as there would be little point in repeatedly running that encounter - e.g. no big phat loot that could not be obtained by other means?
Specific game mechanichs should be avoided if you want to make a generic definition.
I somewhat agree with Tobold take on defining casual vs hardcore, if one would try to make a definition. However, these are not two distinct sides, but rather a number of them.
Rather than talking about casual vs hardcore I think it would be better to talk how different games work with a number of different behaviour patterns.
Chrismue: I'm certain that future MMOs with mass audiences, have to aim at a sweetspot between casuals and hardcore
I strongly disagree. The numbers aren't remotely symmetrical; all you get for catering to the hardcore is a small increase in audience for a disproportionate increase in content building effort. Why bother?
I'm certain that future MMOs with mass audiences will get there by aiming purely at the casuals and completely ignoring the hardcores, or maybe even actively trying to drive them away. (I seem to recall our host expressing a similar sentiment a while ago.)
I strongly disagree. The numbers aren't remotely symmetrical; all you get for catering to the hardcore is a small increase in audience for a disproportionate increase in content building effort. Why bother?
I'm certain that future MMOs with mass audiences will get there by aiming purely at the casuals and completely ignoring the hardcores, or maybe even actively trying to drive them away. (I seem to recall our host expressing a similar sentiment a while ago.)
# posted by : 18/6/07 23:58
: 18/6/07 23:58
Zoso said...
There's an interesting take on it, Challenge vs Engagement, here: http://www.heimburg.com/blog/?p=29
What a stinker. A casual can play a FPS shooter on a higher difficulty level, because they can always pause the game if real life requires their immediate attention.
You can't do that in a raid.
The idea that casual players don't want challenges is absurd. It's more complicated than that.
There's an interesting take on it, Challenge vs Engagement, here: http://www.heimburg.com/blog/?p=29
What a stinker. A casual can play a FPS shooter on a higher difficulty level, because they can always pause the game if real life requires their immediate attention.
You can't do that in a raid.
The idea that casual players don't want challenges is absurd. It's more complicated than that.
# posted by : 19/6/07 01:24
: 19/6/07 01:24
the whole concept casual-hardcore is pretty retarded. i have seen so many different types of people playing the same game it's basically too black and white.
you got more requirements for a mmo-player.
1. how many hours dfo you play per week?
2. how many hours do you play straight
3. do you want to raid or not
4. do you play the game for items
5. do you play the game for the conent
6. do you play the game to socialize
7. how much are you willing to give up to get X
all these question have a certain dedication to the game. people dive into a game or not. they are willing to swim 1meter deep or 50meters deep depending on so many factors. and on each level they can become hardcore. heck, if you have people who only chat ingame, they are known as hardcore-chatters ;)
you got more requirements for a mmo-player.
1. how many hours dfo you play per week?
2. how many hours do you play straight
3. do you want to raid or not
4. do you play the game for items
5. do you play the game for the conent
6. do you play the game to socialize
7. how much are you willing to give up to get X
all these question have a certain dedication to the game. people dive into a game or not. they are willing to swim 1meter deep or 50meters deep depending on so many factors. and on each level they can become hardcore. heck, if you have people who only chat ingame, they are known as hardcore-chatters ;)
I call myself a casual dedicated gamer.
Casual because I don't have time and lust to play 24/7 world of warcraft and let my life walk away while sitting in front of my computer.
Dedicated because I have lists and tables with items I'd like to have, where they drop or what mats I need to craft them. I don't want to waste my time in game with running around and not knowing what to do, so I can take a look into my tables, choose an item I want to get today and start going farming/instancing etc pp.
Gamer because I love gaming, it makes much fun and it's a good alternative to the everyday life working.
Casual because I don't have time and lust to play 24/7 world of warcraft and let my life walk away while sitting in front of my computer.
Dedicated because I have lists and tables with items I'd like to have, where they drop or what mats I need to craft them. I don't want to waste my time in game with running around and not knowing what to do, so I can take a look into my tables, choose an item I want to get today and start going farming/instancing etc pp.
Gamer because I love gaming, it makes much fun and it's a good alternative to the everyday life working.
The idea that casual players don't want challenges is absurd.
No more absurd that saying a game is "casual" because you can pause it.
It's more complicated than that.
That's rather the point. "Total time available" is one metric, "commitment" another which might or might not include "contiguous time available", "challenge vs engagement" another, yada yada, and you can be at any point on any of those various spectra. Few people classify themselves as hardcore, because there's always someone "more hardcore" than you.
WAR's Paul Barnett has an interesting piece on "hot words" that are difficult to discuss because their mere mention brings along a stack of baggage and preconceptions. In his particular case it was "balance", and I think the same applies to "causal" and "hardcore". It's interesting discussing the ideas and possible definitions, and coming up with 27-axes multidimensional representations of the motivations of a gamer, but at the end of the day everyone still has their own idea of what they mean by the terms that seldom coincides closely with someone else's idea.
No more absurd that saying a game is "casual" because you can pause it.
It's more complicated than that.
That's rather the point. "Total time available" is one metric, "commitment" another which might or might not include "contiguous time available", "challenge vs engagement" another, yada yada, and you can be at any point on any of those various spectra. Few people classify themselves as hardcore, because there's always someone "more hardcore" than you.
WAR's Paul Barnett has an interesting piece on "hot words" that are difficult to discuss because their mere mention brings along a stack of baggage and preconceptions. In his particular case it was "balance", and I think the same applies to "causal" and "hardcore". It's interesting discussing the ideas and possible definitions, and coming up with 27-axes multidimensional representations of the motivations of a gamer, but at the end of the day everyone still has their own idea of what they mean by the terms that seldom coincides closely with someone else's idea.
@anonymous said:
"Let's not split hairs. Most hardcore players raid, and most casual players don't raid. There are exceptions, but a player's attitude about raiding is as good a benchmark as any."
Who says raiding has to be designed to be hardcore. There is a post on the Lotro Forums suggesting that one of the raids is almost puggable. I can't say if this is true or not but imagine a raid instance designed so that 40 randoms in a pug could zerg their way through and if 5 of them happen to go AFK it doesn't neccessarily force a wipe. I think I could have fun doing that. It might not keep me coming back every night for a month and it certainly wouldn't satisfy hardcore raiders but it could be a blast.
PS. I broke my own rule and read an anonymous comment. Shame on me.
"Let's not split hairs. Most hardcore players raid, and most casual players don't raid. There are exceptions, but a player's attitude about raiding is as good a benchmark as any."
Who says raiding has to be designed to be hardcore. There is a post on the Lotro Forums suggesting that one of the raids is almost puggable. I can't say if this is true or not but imagine a raid instance designed so that 40 randoms in a pug could zerg their way through and if 5 of them happen to go AFK it doesn't neccessarily force a wipe. I think I could have fun doing that. It might not keep me coming back every night for a month and it certainly wouldn't satisfy hardcore raiders but it could be a blast.
PS. I broke my own rule and read an anonymous comment. Shame on me.
Reminds me of the joke that anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac.
Some of my friends consider me a hard-core player, but I look at other players on-line and feel like a casual player compared to them.
It's all about your own personal perspective.
Hardcore players - you could say anyone in a guild that has taken down Illidan is a hard-core player.
Casual players - anyone who has had the game for months and has yet to go to any instance/not got to Lv 40/ doesn't know who Thrall is/etc etc.
Some of my friends consider me a hard-core player, but I look at other players on-line and feel like a casual player compared to them.
It's all about your own personal perspective.
Hardcore players - you could say anyone in a guild that has taken down Illidan is a hard-core player.
Casual players - anyone who has had the game for months and has yet to go to any instance/not got to Lv 40/ doesn't know who Thrall is/etc etc.
# posted by : 19/6/07 11:25
: 19/6/07 11:25
In reality you've of course got an almost infinite amount of levels between casual and hardcore. For simplicity's sake though we try to handle them all in as few levels as possible. I know that if I would be a dev I would want to classify different quests or perhaps activities into two or three classes just to be able to analyze how much of each is in the game. Having a multitude of levels just makes it harder with such classifications.
So what I'm basically saying is that I don't think that anyone argues that this is a matter that can only be seen as casual or hardcore in reality. There is indeed though some use to discuss it by simplifying it.
So what I'm basically saying is that I don't think that anyone argues that this is a matter that can only be seen as casual or hardcore in reality. There is indeed though some use to discuss it by simplifying it.
# posted by : 19/6/07 12:04
: 19/6/07 12:04
I tend to divide casual and hardcore into how much knowledge they have of the game, not into how much time they spend. Or perhaps I divide them somewhat socially.
If you use a spreadsheet to plan your talent build to max performance, you're hardcore. If you don't know what talent points are, or choose them because the name sounded cool, you're casual.
If you do lots of research on wowhead, wowwiki, various raid and PvP guild forums, etc. looking for upgrades and strategies, you're hardcore. If you never heard of these sites, you're casual.
There still isn't a definite cut-off, though. Lots of people play only a few hours, but they do know a little bit about how to play their class. Lots of players are aware of out-of-game resources even if they rarely use them.
If you use a spreadsheet to plan your talent build to max performance, you're hardcore. If you don't know what talent points are, or choose them because the name sounded cool, you're casual.
If you do lots of research on wowhead, wowwiki, various raid and PvP guild forums, etc. looking for upgrades and strategies, you're hardcore. If you never heard of these sites, you're casual.
There still isn't a definite cut-off, though. Lots of people play only a few hours, but they do know a little bit about how to play their class. Lots of players are aware of out-of-game resources even if they rarely use them.
# posted by : 19/6/07 18:02
: 19/6/07 18:02
I have a slightly expanded version of the class system that has become apparent in endgame content.
As the poster who suggested the article I'll expand on it and post to you in a few days T.
As the poster who suggested the article I'll expand on it and post to you in a few days T.
Hardcore is a meaningless word for how people throw it around.
A more accurate description of a "hardcore" player might be, a vain-professional gamer. A casaul gamer is also another vanilla term, as a casual gamer can mean jsut about anyone. I would best describe casual WoW players, as self paced and typical players.
There are some minor details that you can tell the difference between the vain-professional and the self paced, typical gamer.
One example... someone who is able to explain why natures swiftness is a shaman must have skill talent for pvp or why +healing/+manatick gear works soo well on pallys in comparison to expensive +spelldamage/+stats. The "hardcore" player asks the inane and very geeky questions, casual players ask how to equip skills on skillbars.
Post a Comment
A more accurate description of a "hardcore" player might be, a vain-professional gamer. A casaul gamer is also another vanilla term, as a casual gamer can mean jsut about anyone. I would best describe casual WoW players, as self paced and typical players.
There are some minor details that you can tell the difference between the vain-professional and the self paced, typical gamer.
One example... someone who is able to explain why natures swiftness is a shaman must have skill talent for pvp or why +healing/+manatick gear works soo well on pallys in comparison to expensive +spelldamage/+stats. The "hardcore" player asks the inane and very geeky questions, casual players ask how to equip skills on skillbars.
<< Home
